exchemist Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Does energy spread or condense? We were talking about time. Can we stick to one subject? AmishFighterPilot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Finally found something on the Relativistic Effects in Properties of Gold specifically pertaining to inertness, if anyone is interested. It is a Pdf open access: "Because of the relativistic 6s-contraction in gold the 6s shell becomes more compact (inert, hence the nobility of gold) and the (static dipole) polarizability ®D decreases substantially from 9.5 a.u. (NR) to 5.2 a.u." That is an excellent paper. Very informative indeed. Thanks. I had not taken in that the d orbitals are actually DEstabilised as well, though of course that makes sense when one thinks about it. mrg 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrg Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 I had not taken in that the d orbitals are actually DEstabilised as well, though of course that makes sense when one thinks about it. Oh, you ARE a chemist! Who else would be engrossed in relativistic aspects of electron orbital configurations?! Actually, it is interesting. Get down towards the quantum limits, relativistic effects increasingly show their ugly faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishFighterPilot Posted May 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 We were talking about time. Can we stick to one subject?No, we cannot because space-time is a trinity dependent upon energy and mass. Understanding that the two are just different ends of the same spectrum. Do you seriously think energy and time aren't intimately-related topics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishFighterPilot Posted May 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Sport, it would take a surgical operation to get a clue into your head. And then your immune system would reject it. By the way, I don't think you're wrong. "Das ist nicht eimal falsch!" "That's not EVEN wrong!"Again you just troll. You make no arguments. If you think I'm an idiot, pat me on the head and go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrg Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 You make no arguments. If you think I'm an idiot, pat me on the head and go away. Oh, how tiresome. Do grow up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishFighterPilot Posted May 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Go away troll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrg Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Go away troll I'll take that as a "no". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmishFighterPilot Posted May 28, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Go away or contribute. Stop trolling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Oh, you ARE a chemist! Who else would be engrossed in relativistic aspects of electron orbital configurations?! Actually, it is interesting. Get down towards the quantum limits, relativistic effects increasingly show their ugly faces. Well, er, yes! Got my degree from Oxford in 1976. But it really is interesting, because back in those days we hardly went into this. We dealt of course with the lanthanide contraction as an explanation of why the elements in the 3rd transition series are rather different from those in the first two series, but the effects of relativity were scarcely touched on. But it is clear now that this is a fundamental influence. The anomalous properties of mercury (Hg) are also attributed to this effect. One of the great things about these forums is the snippets you pick up in passing, in course of threads that are ostensibly about something else entirely! This is one reason I try not to be too hard on the cranks and nutters - they often stimulate valuable side discussions, without meaning to. :) AmishFighterPilot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) No, we cannot because space-time is a trinity dependent upon energy and mass. Understanding that the two are just different ends of the same spectrum. Do you seriously think energy and time aren't intimately-related topics? Well yes energy and time are conjugate variables, if that is what you meant. Do you know what that means? Probably not. But that is not relevant to the discussion we were having, so far as I can see. You do have a disconcerting habit of dropping unconnected concepts into the discussion, which makes well nigh impossible to to keep hold of any sort of logical thread through it all. I've been trying to be fair to you but you do not make it easy. Edited May 28, 2017 by exchemist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrg Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Ah, so you were Oxbridge (but likely not Harrow or Eton, old boy!) Did you know Frau Merkel has a doctorate in quantum chemistry? Such an impressive woman! I try to resist taking shots at the nutters, but like I said, I am VERY familiar with them, and I also have a large arsenal of rhetorical tricks to play on them. After a while, it does get to feel a bit unsporting: "Enough for one day, stop picking on small children." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 Ah, so you were Oxbridge (but likely not Harrow or Eton, old boy!) Did you know Frau Merkel has a doctorate in quantum chemistry? Such an impressive woman! I try to resist taking shots at the nutters, but like I said, I am VERY familiar with them, and I also have a large arsenal of rhetorical tricks to play on them. After a while, it does get to feel a bit unsporting: "Enough for one day, stop picking on small children." Hahaha, not quite: I went to Westminster (like Kim Philby and Robert Hooke.). I did however row in a school 1st VIII that beat Eton a couple of times. Very satisfying it was, too. Yes Merkel is a physical scientist - and quite an interestingly shrewd politician, in a very understated and non-egomaniac way. We are all of us too familiar with nutters and cranks, I suppose. But I have found that they start threads that can take unexpected directions and reveal unexpected things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrg Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) Hahaha, not quite: I went to Westminster (like Kim Philby and Robert Hooke.). I did however row in a school 1st VIII that beat Eton a couple of times. Very satisfying it was, too. Yes Merkel is a physical scientist - and quite an interestingly shrewd politician, in a very understated and non-egomaniac way. I suspect the school tends to play up Hooke somewhat more than Philby. Oh yah, he was Cambridge too, part of the Cambridge Five. "Understated and non-egomaniac way"? Whoever could you be obliquely referring to? Edited May 28, 2017 by mrg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 I suspect the school tends to play up Hooke somewhat more than Philby. Oh yah, he was Cambridge too, part of the Cambridge Five. "Understated and non-egomaniac way"? Whoever could you be referring to? Er, well not a recently elected US president, certainly. By the way, did you see the handshake videos of Trump with Macron? After the Trudeau episode, it seems that every male head of state now has lessons in bone-crushing handshakes, to defeat the notorious Trump "yank". Rather childish I suppose but very funny all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrg Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 I was thinking on 9 November 2016, the day after the election, that I would find subsequent events depressing. Sometimes yes, but otherwise it's been a laugh every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceanBreeze Posted May 28, 2017 Report Share Posted May 28, 2017 That is an excellent paper. Very informative indeed. Thanks. I had not taken in that the d orbitals are actually DEstabilised as well, though of course that makes sense when one thinks about it. Exactly. It is very often the tangential dust that gets kicked up that contains the gold. I was aware that the inertness of gold was heavily dependent on relativistic effects on the electron orbital shells but it is not something that I deal with every day and had mostly forgotten about. It was nice to refresh my memory and it was AFP’s question that prompted me to find that paper. I agree it is a good one and glad you liked it. As for AFP, I don’t think he is a crank at all. He obviously has something on his mind about E = Mc^2 and time but he hasn’t expressed it clearly enough for me to figure out yet. What I think he is try to say is E = Mc^2, therefore E/M = c^2 and since c is a velocity it = distance/timeSo the dimensions of time are integral to this equation which is now E/M = (distance/time)^2 And, as you have pointed out, energy and time are conjugate variables, meaning they are related in the same way as position and momentum, and angular orientation and angular momentum according to the uncertainty principle. That is, the more you reduce the uncertainty in one, the more it increases in the other. So, for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt ; I am not sure where he wants to go with this but I am interested in hearing him out, and it would be nice to be able to hear him out without the noise coming from Wile E. Coyote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.