C Squared

Rich, I'm just talking about how screwed up science due to tiny errors that have been introduced over the past 300 years. The thing you are describing is a model and not anything real. The model is used to avoid thinking and promote efficient processing of data. This model of electrons hopping about in an atom is in fact silly but as a practical matter it works very well. Think of other models attempting to be better and see why even if it is a silly model it is better than whatever else is available. In the real world I suspect electrons as they are understood don't exist at all but they work well in models.

<i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Rich, I'm just talking about how screwed up science due to tiny errors that have been introduced over the past 300 years. The thing you are describing is a model and not anything real. The model is used to avoid thinking and promote efficient processing of data. This model of electrons hopping about in an atom is in fact silly but as a practical matter it works very well. Think of other models attempting to be better and see why even if it is a silly model it is better than whatever else is available. In the real world I suspect electrons as they are understood don't exist at all but they work well in models.
________________________________________________________________

jim(its north by the way)

why do you think "electrons" etc. are silly?

this is my point the chemistry is inefficient.

North, I never meant to imply electrons were silly but rather the model is silly because the electrons are hopping up and down and whatever else they do. I said there is no logical reason for electrons to exist outside of models. Some models have holes for electrons to occupy or not. These electron hop from hole to hole in accordance to strict rules. Then there are the free electrons that fly through space following rules too. All this activity is stuff that happens in models. Then there is the real world and there seems to me to be no electrons in it. I don't know how to prove this one way or the other because data is lacking that is basic to making any sense of the processes that are being modeled. As one example, there is no way to find the mass of a photon and the best guess seems to be m=E/c^2. Even if "E" is a given "c^2" is not what it seems so "m" is anybodys guess. And then there is all the stuff that is generated by assuming we know what "c^2" is.

<i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />North, I never meant to imply electrons were silly but rather the model is silly because the electrons are hopping up and down and whatever else they do. I said there is no logical reason for electrons to exist outside of models. Some models have holes for electrons to occupy or not. These electron hop from hole to hole in accordance to strict rules. Then there are the free electrons that fly through space following rules too. All this activity is stuff that happens in models. Then there is the real world and there seems to me to be no electrons in it. I don't know how to prove this one way or the other because data is lacking that is basic to making any sense of the processes that are being modeled. As one example, there is no way to find the mass of a photon and the best guess seems to be m=E/c^2. Even if "E" is a given "c^2" is not what it seems so "m" is anybodys guess. And then there is all the stuff that is generated by assuming we know what "c^2" is.
_____________________________________________________________________

jim

ever thought of maybe trying to build a better model? just go with the way you see things and go from there. if anything,i think you would enjoy it!! and you never know what you might discover.

when i was thinking of the space between the electrons and the nucleous of an atom,what lead me to this is a simple yet perhaps a complex question,"what is water?" yes i know it is h2o this is a chemical reaction point of view, but what IS water,why do i get a liquid when these two come together? is it to do with temperature,the angle of the bonds?,do they open up a hole of sorts,what about magnetism what is it's part if any? now then, carry this over to all molecules,from metal to wood. sure like to have a state of the art lab,observatory,electron microscope,accelerator etc.[]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />I think mass is transformed into energy in a lot of ways that are misunderstood. Anytime a match is lit there is a transformation of some mass into energy but we think of that as a dumb ol chemical reaction. But, make a fission bomb and geewiz we have mass transforming into energy. The reverse is more subtile and so less noticed than explosives but plants transform energy into mass. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I’ve always wanted to ask someone this question: Does a plant turn light energy into matter, or does the light energy provide the plant with the energy to convert dirt and water into additional limbs, leaves, and flowers of the plant?

The overall process plants use transforms carbondioxide and water into hydrocarbons. Sun light as an energy source required to drive the reaction. But, the chemistry is the same as any chemistry-there is nothing magical about it.