18 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere?
An there you go again. Trumpian deny deny deny.
I made the case and it is rock solid.
What happened to you, that you are now such a coward? Calling names when you lose an argument, and carrying things to this extreme. Bully tactics don't work on me. I mop the floor with people like you.
18 Jun 17
Originally posted by apathistI take it from your response that you cannot answer the challenge and are admitting to having lied. You just mopped the floor with yourself.
Where?
What happened to you, that you are now such a coward? Calling names when you lose an argument, and carrying things to this extreme. Bully tactics don't work on me. I mop the floor with people like you.
As for 'loosing' and argument, which one would that be?
18 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never said 'loosing', btw. You can't show, so look what you do! I'm embarrassed about you.
I take it from your response that you cannot answer the challenge and are admitting to having lied. You just mopped the floor with yourself.
As for 'loosing' and argument, which one would that be?
19 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm super drunk. Doesn't make me a liar. I want to like you, but you are such a piece.
No, I don't require your drunk logic to be right. I am right regardless. And you are still a proven liar whether or not you admit to it and whether or not you use drunkenness or deafness as an excuse.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIndivisible like a car, if you remove parts of the car, like the wheels, it is no longer a car. You can remove SOME of the car like the hood, it can still function as a car just like an atom, you can add or subtract an electron or two and it is still that atom but now ionized. For instance, in ion implantation, it matters not a whit if the dopant is ionized or not when it impacts the silicon wafer or whatever is implanted. It is much more convenient to accelerate or steer if it is ionized but when it gets to the silicon it still does it's semiconductor doping function if a stray neutral get implanted or ionized they do the same job as a semiconductor dopant.
Nonsense.
[b]Philosophy inspires science people, that's all.
Science IS philosophy.
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theoryThe phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory ....
The idea of the indivisible atom was so useful that it was used by science (specifically chemistry). You are totally wrong tha ...[text shortened]... ooms, I really don't know what you are on about there, but I am willing to bet you are confused.[/b]
Originally posted by apathistMore bad logic.
I'm super drunk. Doesn't make me a liar.
You are a liar and you are drunk. One doesn't follow from the other nor have I claimed that it did. Suggesting that I did, is dishonest of you.
I want to like you, but you are such a piece.
I have no desire to like you.
If you ever come out of your drunken stupor, perhaps you could tell us the date of the discovery of the atom. You know, the one that the philosophers you mentioned thought was indivisible, but turned out not to be.
19 Jun 17
Originally posted by sonhouseActually the concept of an atom as being a nucleus and a given number of electrons is inaccurate in most cases. Atoms in molecules share electrons. From a chemists point of view, the indivisible atom is the nucleus - specifically the nuclear charge as that largely determines its chemical properties.
For instance, in ion implantation, it matters not a whit if the dopant is ionized or not when it impacts the silicon wafer or whatever is implanted.
30 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not a chemist, but doesn't the valence of an atom determine some of its chemical properties?
Actually the concept of an atom as being a nucleus and a given number of electrons is inaccurate in most cases. Atoms in molecules share electrons. From a chemists point of view, the indivisible atom is the nucleus - specifically the nuclear charge as that largely determines its chemical properties.
30 Jun 17
5 edits
Originally posted by Suziannecorrect, but the number of positive charged nucleons (the protons) in the nucleus of he atom determines the valency of that atom and also defines which chemical element that atom belongs to (as I know from my chemistry studies at university, the effect it has on whole multi-atom molecules is usually much more complex and indirect and a LOT harder to understand)
I am not a chemist, but doesn't the valence of an atom determine some of its chemical properties?
30 Jun 17
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, and valence is a direct function of nuclear charge, or the number of protons in the nucleus. The number of neutrons is largely irrelevant and it is very difficult to distinguish between atoms with different numbers of neutrons but the same number of protons.
I am not a chemist, but doesn't the valence of an atom determine some of its chemical properties?
Valence goes in patterns, hence the periodic table, but there are differences between different rows (or we wouldn't distinguish all the elements).
