Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New Volcanic Activity This Week- Three~~ Total 16 active
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: PD on 20 Sep 2009 16:07 On Sep 20, 9:00 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 18, 3:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Texts which contain willful errors have > little or no veracity. Sorry, but all of that stuff has been amply confirmed in experiment multiple times and with independent means, usually repeated after the original experiments with much higher precision. You seem to like to try to reproduce early experiments, which are rough. But you don't seem to get that later, completely independent experiments have established those principles much more firmly than the original experiments. You do not cause the downfall of later, independent, much high precision experiments by casting doubt on the first, rough experiment. That would be like criticizing the Egyptian's measurement of the diameter of the earth and using that to claim that the earth is flat. > If there were a disclaimer on the first pages > saying: "Use this text at your own risk. In order to protect the egos > and the tenures of the science establishment in academia, nothing that > has ever been printed in this text which "might be" wrong has been > allowed to be superseded by latter science truths.", then and only > then would such text be suited for the non fiction section. "Truths" in science do not just appear and compete on a level playing field. They need ample and careful and INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED experimental checks. This you have not achieved. > > Because every area of science has the same monster egos to protect, it > is likely that chemistry, biology and etc., also keep getting thicker > and thicker texts to side-step making any of those in the academic > establishment look bad... ***Screwed-up education represents 1/3rd of > our nation's problemsmonetary and otherwise!*** The funding for > education, across the board, needs to be cut to 50%, immediately. And > all publicly funded education should stop at age 16. Never again > should public funds be used to send any person to a college or > university whose diplomas aren't worth the paper they are written on. > Note: The more people who are sent to higher education, the lower is > the value of the diplomas. NoEinstein > > > > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > > > Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > > > get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > > > up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > > > projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > > > own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > > > the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > > > about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > > > quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > > > area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > > > your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > > I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > > your own words". > > > > You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > > bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > > blurred distinction? > > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > aisles! NoEinstein > > > All of them. Imagine! > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > is based on physics. > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > biology is based on chemistry. > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > believed! > > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > probably wrong, too.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: NoEinstein on 23 Sep 2009 21:48 On Sep 20, 11:23 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. NE > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 19, 1:54 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > Where is YOUR contribution to science Dougie Boy, the Leech? NE > > Unlike you, I have made contributions. Your main contribution > is to give us someone to laugh at. We can also use you as > an example of what happens when your ego gets to big > for you to be able to see anything else. > > >>Y.Porat wrote: > > >>>On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>>>>>>>>>>your own words". > >>>>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? > > >>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>>>>>>>>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! > >>>>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > >>>>>>>>>>is based on physics. > >>>>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > >>>>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. > >>>>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > >>>>>>>>>>believed! > >>>>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > >>>>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. > > >>>>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > >>>>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > >>>>>>>>>criteria. > > >>>>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > >>>>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > >>>>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > >>>>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > >>>>>>>>the license. > > >>>>>>>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > > >>>>>>>from the architects who did read the books? > > >>>>>>Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > >>>>>>to right! > > >>>>>------------------ > >>>>>now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! > >>>>>and all that by his fucken QM !! > >>>>>the man is a pathologic ------- > > >>>>>-----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! > >>>>>who thinks he can cheat every one > > >>>>What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I > >>>>told you. > >>>>It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. > > >>>>>forever !!! > >>>>>poor pupils of his !! > > >>>>>Y.P > >>>>>=------------------------ > > >>>you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom > >>>based on your shell theory > >>>isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about > > >>>2 > >>>i asked youas well > >>>tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that > >>>based on your shell model > >>>toshow a calcualtion > >>>that will show that teh Atom > >>>of Al > >>> MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au > >>> ie Gold > >>>(and a tom with 13 electrons around it > >>>is according to you must have the same volume > >>>as that og Gold with > >>>79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! > >>>if you say it is easy > >>>you ether dont know about what youare talking about > >>>or yiou are a crook > >>>just one of the problems fo rthat > >>>is > >>>how differnt electons > > >>Since you cannot even write a coherent sentence, > >>it is not surprising that you cannot do any > >>science. > > >>>in different shells > >>>repel each other !! > >>>**in all 3D direction > >>>even that 'simple problem > >>>is > >>>shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * > >>>those that are beside them > >>>those that are above and > >>>below them etc > >>>and all that in additionto the > >>>Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc > >>>and that i s only one of many > >>> other oroblems !!! > >>>another problem is > >>>why should there be a screening effect > >>>of closer shells on those > >>>further away!! > >>>i can promis you that even God > >>>would not take control on that > >>>turmoil > >>>it seems much better > >>>that you dont have a green ideal > >>>about waht is going on there !!! > >>>(by your fantastic model) > >>>remember that word > >>>'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) > > >>>and if you don thave that calcualtion > >>>just show a quote > >>>you can ask the hjelp of all > >>>universites of the world > >>>but still dont forget totellthem > >>>that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that > >>>Al volume is the same as Au > >>>btw > >>>if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that > >>>heavy atoms have a bigger > >>>involume than light one > >>>is it not the common paradigm !! ?? > >>>)is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) > >>>yet we find that > >>>not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) > >>> are not bigger > >>>but practically the ***same** volume !! > >>>is it the common paradigm > >>>and 'common sense """""??? (:-) > > >>Well, if you would even look at a chemistry > >>book, you would start to see how stupid you look. > >>But it seems easier for you to have tantrums. > > >>>TIA > >>>Y.Porat > >>>---------------------- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 23 Sep 2009 21:55 On Sep 20, 1:36 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: Someone should design "one of those" as your last place of residence. NE > > NoEinstein wrote: > > On Sep 18, 4:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > Dougie Boy, the Leech: Unfortunately for the world, you were outside > > of those... buildings. NE > > So you are admitting that your buildings fell down? > > >>PD wrote: > > >>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>>>>>your own words". > >>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>>>>>blurred distinction? > > >>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>>>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > >>>>>All of them. Imagine! > >>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > >>>>>is based on physics. > >>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > >>>>>biology is based on chemistry. > >>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > >>>>>believed! > >>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > >>>>>probably wrong, too. > > >>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > >>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > >>>>criteria. > > >>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > >>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > >>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > >>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > >>>the license. > > >>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > >>from the architects who did read the books?- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 23 Sep 2009 22:00 On Sep 20, 4:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD: "Engineering" is taught in various colleges of engineering NOT in the useless college of physics. Can you show otherwise? NoEinstein > > On Sep 20, 9:09 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 3:31 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: Architecture is primarily an art over > > engineering discipline. If the world were put under the control of > > architects and engineersforgetting about the head-in-clouds scientists > > the world would be a better place. NE > > Why do you say that? Engineers practice physics. > What's head-in-the-clouds about that? > Note that a lot of the physics that is used by architects and > engineers is the stuff you've rejected. > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > >>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > > >>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > > >>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > > >>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > > >>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > > >>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > > >>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > > >>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > > >>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > > >>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > > >>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > > >>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > > >>>your own words". > > > > >>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > > >>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > > >>>blurred distinction? > > > > > >>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > > >>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > > > All of them. Imagine! > > > > > Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > > > is based on physics. > > > > > And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > > > biology is based on chemistry. > > > > > Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > > > believed! > > > > > All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > > > probably wrong, too. > > > > > This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > > > rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > > > criteria. > > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > the license.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: doug on 23 Sep 2009 23:38
NoEinstein wrote: > On Sep 20, 11:23 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > Dear Dougie Boy, the leech: You are an example of a severely mentally > ill low-life whose "accomplishments" are limited to disparaging those > who actually HAVE accomplishments. You are a blood-sucking groupie of > the worst kind. Calling you a leech is most apt. � NE � John is here for us to laugh at. He is doing a good job of that. > >>NoEinstein wrote: >> >>>On Sep 19, 1:54 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>Where is YOUR contribution to science Dougie Boy, the Leech? � NE � >> >>Unlike you, I have made contributions. Your main contribution >>is to give us someone to laugh at. We can also use you as >>an example of what happens when your ego gets to big >>for you to be able to see anything else. >> >> >>>>Y.Porat wrote: >> >>>>>On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>PD wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>PD wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>your own words". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION >>>>>>>>>>>>>aisles! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! >>>>>>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry >>>>>>>>>>>>is based on physics. >>>>>>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of >>>>>>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. >>>>>>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>believed! >>>>>>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is >>>>>>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. >> >>>>>>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they >>>>>>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own >>>>>>>>>>>criteria. >> >>>>>>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the >>>>>>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but >>>>>>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural >>>>>>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get >>>>>>>>>>the license. >> >>>>>>>>>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are >> >>>>>>>>>from the architects who did read the books? >> >>>>>>>>Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close >>>>>>>>to right! >> >>>>>>>------------------ >>>>>>>now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! >>>>>>>and all that by his fucken QM !! >>>>>>>the man is a pathologic ------- >> >>>>>>>-----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! >>>>>>>who thinks he can cheat every one >> >>>>>>What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I >>>>>>told you. >>>>>>It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. >> >>>>>>>forever !!! >>>>>>>poor pupils of his !! >> >>>>>>>Y.P >>>>>>>=------------------------ >> >>>>>you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom >>>>>based on your shell theory >>>>>isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about >> >>>>>2 >>>>>i asked youas well >>>>>tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that >>>>>based on your shell model >>>>>toshow a calcualtion >>>>>that will show that teh Atom >>>>>of Al >>>>>MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au >>>>> ie Gold >>>>>(and a tom with 13 electrons around it >>>>>is according to you must have the same volume >>>>>as that og Gold with >>>>>79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! >>>>>if you say it is easy >>>>>you ether dont know about what youare talking about >>>>>or yiou are a crook >>>>>just one of the problems fo rthat >>>>>is >>>>>how differnt electons >> >>>>Since you cannot even write a coherent sentence, >>>>it is not surprising that you cannot do any >>>>science. >> >>>>>in different shells >>>>>repel each other !! >>>>>**in all 3D direction >>>>>even that 'simple problem >>>>>is >>>>>shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * >>>>>those that are beside them >>>>>those that are above and >>>>>below them etc >>>>>and all that in additionto the >>>>>Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc >>>>>and that i s only one of many >>>>>other oroblems !!! >>>>>another problem is >>>>>why should there be a screening effect >>>>>of closer shells on those >>>>>further away!! >>>>>i can promis you that even God >>>>>would not take control on that >>>>>turmoil >>>>>it seems much better >>>>>that you dont have a green ideal >>>>>about waht is going on there !!! >>>>>(by your fantastic model) >>>>>remember that word >>>>>'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) >> >>>>>and if you don thave that calcualtion >>>>>just show a quote >>>>>you can ask the hjelp of all >>>>>universites of the world >>>>>but still dont forget totellthem >>>>>that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that >>>>>Al volume is the same as Au >>>>>btw >>>>>if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that >>>>>heavy atoms have a bigger >>>>>involume than light one >>>>>is it not the common paradigm !! ?? >>>>>)is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) >>>>>yet we find that >>>>>not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) >>>>> are not bigger >>>>>but practically the ***same** volume !! >>>>>is it the common paradigm >>>>>and 'common sense """""??? (:-) >> >>>>Well, if you would even look at a chemistry >>>>book, you would start to see how stupid you look. >>>>But it seems easier for you to have tantrums. >> >>>>>TIA >>>>>Y.Porat >>>>>---------------------- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > |