seeking information.....

[zelazny]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
also... in your research (both of you guys)...
please explain how these results are in effect
for instances such as a hologram</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh? A hologram is just a projection that is '3d'.
I'm not completely sure what you mean by that

[img]confused.gif[/img]

[Ivana]

Before I start, I apologize for the poor translation of certain terms/laws. Since I'm not sure how to translate some of them, I'll use an explanation.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">what is the force that keeps your cells
together.... </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are two types of electric charges: positive and negative. Opposite charges attract one another and the 'attractive' force between them is proportional to the amount of electrics of the positive charge (+Q1) and the negative charge (-Q2) and disproportional to the square of the distance between the charges (r).
So, the smaller the distance between the charges get, the stronger the attractive force is. However, if the distance gets too small, they start pulling away from each other. Why is that? Energy. There is an optimal energy state for every atom, molecule, compound, etc.


Every atom has protons and neutrons in the nucleus, and electrons in the ?electronic cloud?. Electrons emit electromagnetic waves with specific wave lengths that form a spectrum (continuous and lineal). Characteristic lines of hydrogen are made of doubles, which only slightly vary in wave lengths, which means that electrons that emit them vary very little in energy. These doubles are also known as ?spins? (I?m simplifying). Every electron acts as a little magnet with N and S pole. This is b/c an electron is negatively charged and its rotation around itself gives it a ?spinal magnetic moment?.
A magnetic field exists in the atom itself b/c of the rotation of the electron(s) around the nucleus and it effects the magnetic field of the spin of the electron changing the energy of the system.

Wave nature of electrons and their energy state in the atom are described by Schr?dinger?s wave equation and wave functions (amplitude) must have constant values to go with this equation. There are 3 such constants and their values are called ?quant numbers? (they are dependant on each other). Wave function that describes a specific combination of these 3 numbers (which tells you the allowed energy state of the electron) is called an orbital. Every orbital matches a particular value of energy. Combination of orbitals make shells (K,L,M,N,O,P,Q).
K only has an s-orbital (1 orbital). L has s- and p- (3 orbitals). M has s-, p- and d- (5 orbitals).
According to the first Hund rule, electrons spread among degenerated orbitals (the ones with the same energy) so that the number of unpaired electrons is the highest b/c the cloud of electron charges is then maximally spread across the atom and the atom has the lowest energy state.

When atoms combine to make a molecule or a compound, their goal is also to achieve a state of the lowest energy state.
Molecular wave function is a combination of two or more wave function, every one of which partially describes the molecule. The theory of molecular orbitals says that when atomic nuclei are at a specific distance from each other, molecular orbitals are formed from atomic orbitals of the two atoms. The electrons of these atoms enter these newly formed orbitals. There are different types of molecular orbitals and they are formed by combining s- and s- orbitals, or s- with p-, s- with d-, ?. And only atomic molecules of the same simetry can form a molecular orbital. This is the basis for chemical bounds.

As you can see, there is no divine plan here, just a set of rules that electrons follow based on their energy, so I?d say that is the force that keeps everything together, and ultimately the cells too.


I? not sure about the hologram either. Fotons and light? Energy. I dunno.

[Cyalaytr]

Olives [img]eek.gif[/img]

[zelazny]

(for any extra explanation or questions, you know how to reach me on yahoo)

[Ivana]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by Cyalaytr:
Olives [img]eek.gif[/img] </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should I not have posted that long boring reply? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Cyalaytr]

Oh no that more so in reply to Shatzy never ending quest to know all the answers to everything such as how they earth started spinning this way instead of that way or why the ocean waves come towards us instead of away from us. So instead of being sucked into some quantum physics arguement that will go circle before answered by no one here who has yet to win the nobel prize... I last checked. I was reverting back to something simple and on my mind. Olives. I want olives on my pizza. HMMM which is circular in nature but only by accident as when they spin the pizza in the air it tends to be drawn out in a circular pattern equally around the edges and yet no one really seems to know why.

CYA

<font color="#6699ff" size="1">[ June 24, 2003 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Cyalaytr ]</font>

[Hannibal]

This is discussed sort of at length in my book I have.. however... I dont feel like copying page for page for page.
It's got an interesting edge to the whole problem you just posed shatzy.
I've told you about this book many times, and was gonna send it to you once... I simply never got around to. my fault [img]frown.gif[/img]

[Mystyx]

*smiles softly and continues to chase butterflies* [img]graemlins/sun.gif[/img]

[SHATOUSHKA]

are olives really circular by nature?
perhaps it is the will of the olive to be round!

(jk!)

ok... getting on what ivana said....
(allow me to brutally hack at your post)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by ivana:

When atoms combine to make a molecule or a compound, their goal is also to achieve a state of the lowest energy state. {...}
As you can see, there is no divine plan here, just a set of rules that electrons follow based on their energy, so I?d say that is the force that keeps everything together, and ultimately the cells too.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok... two things....

#1 --

the way its described... this process is similar
(though somewhat) to the laws of gravity... despite
the size of the objects in pull/rotation/orbit/conjunction....
be it inter-galactic entities or sub-atomic entities....
and while the law of gravity seeeeeems stable...
nothing (from what i know) defines how one thing
is positive/negative over another but in its
sheer reaction to another thing....

in other words... you can speak of magnetic/gravitational
forces and their effects... but does that necessitate
that it can only be defined by its reaction?

secondly, its simple to state that positive
and negative entities repel... and this reaction
is justified on the basis of energy (components,
waves, and 'states')... but that STILL only
seems to justify energy on the basis of its
reaction in regards to another 'thing'....
and nothing of its true 'self'....

i can explain that the moon is in orbit to the
earth, and the earth in orbit to the sun...
in a similar fashion as that of sub-atomic
entities (but on a larger scale).... but it
doesn't justify gravity in itself....

meaning... would gravity exist if there were
just one object?

this carries me into #2 --

ivana mentions 'lowest energy state' and 'rules
that follow a certain blah blah blah'.....
(and i wonder if your 'engergy state' is different
than how i interpreted it)

but this doesn't necessitate basic principles
of energy (in itself) unless in flux with another
'thing'....

so what i'm saying is....

you can divide an atom in 'half' and dissect
its components... then justify why those components
react the way they do.... (we'll call this 'X')
but it doesn't determine the properties of X
in itself..... but only in contrast to the
reactions X creates.

er.... does this make any sense??? [img]confused.gif[/img] [img]redface.gif[/img]

[Ivana]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">the way its described... this process is similar
(though somewhat) to the laws of gravity... </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Phyical formulae that describe these forces are similar.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">you can divide an atom in 'half' and dissect
its components... then justify why those components
react the way they do.... (we'll call this 'X')
but it doesn't determine the properties of X
in itself..... but only in contrast to the
reactions X creates.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you can determine the properties of X in itself but I didn't go into that cos, honestly, it's hard to fit a whole semestar into one post and it would be impossible for me to make a little summary when there would be a bunch of things in it that would require explaining. There is a great book that I used that explains thses things in detail. Unfortulatelly, there isn't an english version out there [img]frown.gif[/img]