Revolted.
#301
Re: Revolted.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandst...ater-bad-vibes
#302
Part Time Poster
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 4,219
Re: Revolted.
Number of pairs of electrons available to form "hydrogen bonds” just aren’t there..
Li only one electron in the p orbits hence LiH
Heavily dissociated outer electron gives preference to ionic bonds
Na has two electrons in the p orbits Na
Again dissociated outer electrons preference to ionic bonds
Remember its this 'lose' electron behavior that makes metals
As we move across the table to Boron, Carbon and Nitrogen where the electron in the orbits and nucleus structure shift the tendency to electron sharing rather than donation and we get the covalent bonding, as we move out to oxygen we get a shift toward polarization that gives rise to hydrogen bonds which is electron sharing with a bias, once we move to fluorine then we get back to an extreme where the electrons are pulled in to complete orbitals rather than donated as per the metals (oxegen will pull in electrons too)
As we get to the next layer on the periodic table we’re moved out an electron shell and bond behavior has shifted…
So you slept through, electrons bonding and the relationship of the periodic table…
I’m guessing you failed chemistry… or you’ve forgotten a lot……
Li only one electron in the p orbits hence LiH
Heavily dissociated outer electron gives preference to ionic bonds
Na has two electrons in the p orbits Na
Again dissociated outer electrons preference to ionic bonds
Remember its this 'lose' electron behavior that makes metals
As we move across the table to Boron, Carbon and Nitrogen where the electron in the orbits and nucleus structure shift the tendency to electron sharing rather than donation and we get the covalent bonding, as we move out to oxygen we get a shift toward polarization that gives rise to hydrogen bonds which is electron sharing with a bias, once we move to fluorine then we get back to an extreme where the electrons are pulled in to complete orbitals rather than donated as per the metals (oxegen will pull in electrons too)
As we get to the next layer on the periodic table we’re moved out an electron shell and bond behavior has shifted…
So you slept through, electrons bonding and the relationship of the periodic table…
I’m guessing you failed chemistry… or you’ve forgotten a lot……
Last edited by MikeUK; Jun 6th 2014 at 1:15 pm.
#303
Re: Revolted.
Oh, FFS. If you're going to rabbit on and on about the mystical, god inspired properties of water, do yourself a favour and read this first.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical...drogen_Bonding
or any other chemistry textbook.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical...drogen_Bonding
or any other chemistry textbook.
#304
Part Time Poster
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Worcestershire
Posts: 4,219
Re: Revolted.
Oh, FFS. If you're going to rabbit on and on about the mystical, god inspired properties of water, do yourself a favour and read this first.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical...drogen_Bonding
or any other chemistry textbook.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical...drogen_Bonding
or any other chemistry textbook.
I think he would have been better off if he'd tried to tout carbon's abilty to form long chains and polymers as mystical life forming chemistry...
#305
Re: Revolted.
Oh, FFS. If you're going to rabbit on and on about the mystical, god inspired properties of water, do yourself a favour and read this first.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical...drogen_Bonding
or any other chemistry textbook.
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical...drogen_Bonding
or any other chemistry textbook.
Given that we are all extraordinarily lucky to have made it, we should all be nice to each other. Some people seem to have a hard time with that last part around here.
Last edited by iaink; Jun 6th 2014 at 1:25 pm.
#306
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: Revolted.
My husband once got hoodwinked into going to a 'scientific' talk which turned out to be 'intelligent design'. These guys try to blind laymen with their great scientific knowledge and just look stupid.
#307
Re: Revolted.
I think "FFS" that you will find I never mentioned God as the inspiration for any of this. I was pointing out that the set of circumstances that leads to our existence has a vanishingly small probability, and that its far more wondrous (to me) that these came about via a set of rules we are figuring out. All of which if far more amazing (again, to me) than the idea that a supernatural being created us out of playdough and breathed life into, or whatever.
Given that we are all extraordinarily lucky to have made it, we should all be nice to each other. Some people seem to have a hard time with that last part around here.
Given that we are all extraordinarily lucky to have made it, we should all be nice to each other. Some people seem to have a hard time with that last part around here.
Probability theory is a useful tool to help predict outcomes within a statistically significant sample pool. But when there is a sample of one (the Earth) and an event that has actually taken place (the existence of live) then the probability of that event is 1 - as in, absolutely certain.
And anyway, even if we're looking at it from the perspective of the whole universe and at the moment of the big bang, your vanishingly small probability begins to look a bit silly. Of all the approximately 7 x 10^22 star systems (or whatever the current estimate for total number of stars is) the probability that conditions have to be just so for life to form as it has on Earth only has to be one in 7 x 10^22 for your "vanishingly small probability" to come to pass. Is one in 70 sextillion small enough for you? We are that one.
Last edited by Oakvillian; Jun 6th 2014 at 1:34 pm.
#309
Re: Revolted.
But your "vanishingly small probability" is irrelevant given that is exactly what has happened.
Probability theory is a useful tool to help predict outcomes within a statistically significant sample pool. But when there is a sample of one (the Earth) and an event that has actually taken place (the existence of live) then the probability of that event is 1 - as in, absolutely certain.
And anyway, even if we're looking at it from the perspective of the whole universe and at the moment of the big bang, your vanishingly small probability begins to look a bit silly. Of all the approximately 7 x 10^22 star systems (or whatever the current estimate for total number of stars is) the probability that conditions have to be just so for life to form as it has on Earth only has to be one in 7 x 10^22 for your "vanishingly small probability" to come to pass. Is one in 70 sextillion small enough for you? We are that one.
Probability theory is a useful tool to help predict outcomes within a statistically significant sample pool. But when there is a sample of one (the Earth) and an event that has actually taken place (the existence of live) then the probability of that event is 1 - as in, absolutely certain.
And anyway, even if we're looking at it from the perspective of the whole universe and at the moment of the big bang, your vanishingly small probability begins to look a bit silly. Of all the approximately 7 x 10^22 star systems (or whatever the current estimate for total number of stars is) the probability that conditions have to be just so for life to form as it has on Earth only has to be one in 7 x 10^22 for your "vanishingly small probability" to come to pass. Is one in 70 sextillion small enough for you? We are that one.
#310
Re: Revolted.
We're nothing special.