Bible Discussion: Inert Cores

Inert Cores
Posts: 39

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Timothy Sutter
2004-10-17 11:22:04 EST
all chemical reactivity is generated
in 'areas' outside of an 'inert core'
which is not involved in the
chemical reactivity at all.

in fact, most all chemical reactivity is
driven by the tendecy to -achieve- inert cores.
these are the things which are in the most
stable electronic state.

likewise, there is no fundamental reason
-not- to have ideas which may form some
sort of 'inert core' around which you have
a more fluid area of variable understandability.

been banking way too much on
'uncertainty principles' which leave
you without a leg to stand on properly.

it's not at all a problem to build up
what amounts to 'inert cores' of
fundamental knowledge.

sure, helium, neon and argon
gases are basically unreactive,

but chlorine's reactivity is pretty much
driven towards its achieving an inert
argon core elctronic environment.

Gold is unreactive because
it has an inert-gas-metal core.

-but- it has other properties which
make it a very useful element in
and of itself.

malleability and electrical
conductivity as a one and a two.

funny that our friend with the
'inert metal core' is highly malleable.

and, even gold can be etched by 'aqua regia'

anyway,

it's not at all a stifling thing to amass
information and ideas in 'cores' of useful bits.

quite the contrary, it can be suggested that
it would represent a fundamentally -stifling-
situation if you did -not- amass such cores
of knowledge, inasmuch as the chemical
processes on which you carry these bits
are driven -towards- such cores.

Timothy Sutter
2004-10-17 11:36:54 EST
> it's not at all a stifling thing to amass
> information and ideas in 'cores' of useful bits.

> quite the contrary, it can be suggested that
> it would represent a fundamentally -stifling-
> situation if you did -not- amass such cores
> of knowledge, inasmuch as the chemical
> processes on which you carry these bits
> are driven -towards- such cores.

if a core set of beliefs can
be smashed, so what?

pick up the pieces and move on.

or, sift thru the pieces to find what
can be salvaged, if anything, and move
on towards another core understanding.

when you can't smash it, find out
what else it's good for.

as an aside bit of nuclear chemistry;
if you become radioactive, start
spitting out beta particles.

funny thing is, 'beta particles' are helium nuclei,

and these nuclei are, needless to say,
extrememly reactive, inasmuch as they
will immediately gain their inert gas core.

'fundamentals' are not 'bad'

t e s t t h e m

St. Dave
2004-10-17 13:06:31 EST


--
If you don't involve yourself in the politics of your nation, you will
assuredly be governed by those who do !!
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:41728E1C.4E90@lycos.com...
> all chemical reactivity is generated
> in 'areas' outside of an 'inert core'
> which is not involved in the
> chemical reactivity at all.
>
> in fact, most all chemical reactivity is
> driven by the tendecy to -achieve- inert cores.
> these are the things which are in the most
> stable electronic state.
>
> likewise, there is no fundamental reason
> -not- to have ideas which may form some
> sort of 'inert core' around which you have
> a more fluid area of variable understandability.
>
> been banking way too much on
> 'uncertainty principles' which leave
> you without a leg to stand on properly.
>
> it's not at all a problem to build up
> what amounts to 'inert cores' of
> fundamental knowledge.
>
> sure, helium, neon and argon
> gases are basically unreactive,
>
> but chlorine's reactivity is pretty much
> driven towards its achieving an inert
> argon core elctronic environment.
>
> Gold is unreactive because
> it has an inert-gas-metal core.
>
> -but- it has other properties which
> make it a very useful element in
> and of itself.
>
> malleability and electrical
> conductivity as a one and a two.
>
> funny that our friend with the
> 'inert metal core' is highly malleable.
>
> and, even gold can be etched by 'aqua regia'
>
> anyway,
>
> it's not at all a stifling thing to amass
> information and ideas in 'cores' of useful bits.
>
> quite the contrary, it can be suggested that
> it would represent a fundamentally -stifling-
> situation if you did -not- amass such cores
> of knowledge, inasmuch as the chemical
> processes on which you carry these bits
> are driven -towards- such cores.

To extend the metaphor a bit,
it's worth noting that even 'cores' of knowledge
are variable, since atomic states are likewise
variable at the quark level
RAW uses the idea of 'quantum reality tunnels'
to good effect throughout his writings...



Timothy Sutter
2004-10-17 17:35:19 EST
> Timothy Sutter wrote ...

> > all chemical reactivity is generated
> > in 'areas' outside of an 'inert core'
> > which is not involved in the
> > chemical reactivity at all.
...
> > likewise, there is no fundamental reason
> > -not- to have ideas which may form some
> > sort of 'inert core' around which you have
> > a more fluid area of variable understandability.
...
> > been banking way too much on
> > 'uncertainty principles' which leave
> > you without a leg to stand on properly.
...
> > it's not at all a problem to build up
> > what amounts to 'inert cores' of
> > fundamental knowledge.
...
> > it's not at all a stifling thing to amass
> > information and ideas in 'cores' of useful bits.
...
> > quite the contrary, it can be suggested that
> > it would represent a fundamentally -stifling-
> > situation if you did -not- amass such cores
> > of knowledge, inasmuch as the chemical
> > processes on which you carry these bits
> > are driven -towards- such cores.

St. Dave wrote:

> To extend the metaphor a bit,
> it's worth noting that even 'cores' of knowledge
> are variable, since atomic states are likewise
> variable at the quark level

use of simile isn't 'proof'

so, saying;

A is somewhat like B

C is in A

therefore, C is exactly like B

is a bit beyond what one can safely attribute.

so, saying;

'cores of knowledge -are- variable
because atomic states are variable'
(or so you believe)

'extends the metaphor'
beyond its reasonable limits.
beyond 'likeness' and off in to 'exactitude.'

which it isn't.

but anyway, i mean look, as far as the
electronic state reality is concerned,

the electrons in an inert core are still whizzing
around the nucleus, but they just don't play
a role in the chemistry of the element.

and in the 'metaphor' this represnts
a certain stability to given underlying
knowledge bits.

but in the electronic reality from which
the metaphor is taken there is already
a considerable bit of probablistic information
in the inert cores themselves.

so anyway, running around wondering if rocks
will or will not fall to the ground when you drop them
becomes entirely meaningless to question after
roughly 15 times dropping a rock from your
hand and watching it fall each time.

where statistically speaking, for a thing like that,


as the number of data points in a sample
approches '15', the 'mean value'
approaches the 'true value'


so, -you- personally can convince yourself
that a rock may fall out of your hand and
jettison itself out of the earth's gravitational
field and fly to the moon,

but, for all practical purposes,
it ain't never gunna happen.

one can easily 'rest' upon the idea
that gravity is rather changeless.

and then avoid taking one step too many
near a considerably steep precipice.


> RAW uses the idea of 'quantum reality tunnels'
> to good effect throughout his writings...


he probably doesn't know what he's talking
about but uses 'exciting' and 'modern'
verbage to sell books.


i've never intimated that such a thing
as 'imagination' does not exist nor that
one cannot create environments that
they may never visit in 'real life'

but, difficulties may arise when you cannot
grasp when an idea so 'imagined' will never
play a part on 'real life'

one may 'imagine' themselves flying
off to Rigel and back in three nights,

but for all practical purposes,
it ain't never gunna happen.

we test the spirit

we examine ourselves.

we make adjustments when necessary.

we live in the real world.

we become the crafted nexus
between God and the material world.

and we rely upon past advances
to assist in carrying us in to
future advances.

we'd rather not focus on unreal pipedreams.

we are not looking for escape.

we dive in head first.

or feet first, just don't
break your own back.

metaphor and reality sometimes are the same thing.

etcetera etcetera etcetera

Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello
2004-10-18 00:46:29 EST
SHIT below planks, a ship is sunk without water.


"St. Dave" <verbius@nemii.com> wrote in message
news:HY6dnT8T6PUGO-_cRVn-rg@rogers.com...
>
>
> --
> If you don't involve




Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello
2004-10-18 00:47:41 EST
weed eeees!


"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4172E597.6ED7@lycos.com...
>> Timothy Sutter wrote ...
>
>> > all chemical reactivity is generated
>> > in 'areas' outside of an 'inert core'
>> > which is not involved in the
>> > chemical reactivity at all.
> ...
>> > likewise, there is no fundamental reason
>> > -not- to have ideas which may form some
>> > sort of 'inert core' around which you have
>> > a more fluid area of variable understandability.
> ...
>> > been banking way too much on
>> > 'uncertainty principles' which leave
>> > you without a leg to stand on properly.
> ...
>> > it's not at all a problem to build up
>> > what amounts to 'inert cores' of
>> > fundamental knowledge.
> ...
>> > it's not at all a stifling thing to amass
>> > information and ideas in 'cores' of useful bits.
> ...
>> > quite the contrary, it can be suggested that
>> > it would represent a fundamentally -stifling-
>> > situation if you did -not- amass such cores
>> > of knowledge, inasmuch as the chemical
>> > processes on which you carry these bits
>> > are driven -towards- such cores.
>
> St. Dave wrote:
>
>> To extend the metaphor a bit,
>> it's worth noting that even 'cores' of knowledge
>> are variable, since atomic states are likewise
>> variable at the quark level
>
> use of simile isn't 'proof'
>
> so, saying;
>
> A is somewhat like B
>
> C is in A
>
> therefore, C is exactly like B
>
> is a bit beyond what one can safely attribute.
>
> so, saying;
>
> 'cores of knowledge -are- variable
> because atomic states are variable'
> (or so you believe)
>
> 'extends the metaphor'
> beyond its reasonable limits.
> beyond 'likeness' and off in to 'exactitude.'
>
> which it isn't.
>
> but anyway, i mean look, as far as the
> electronic state reality is concerned,
>
> the electrons in an inert core are still whizzing
> around the nucleus, but they just don't play
> a role in the chemistry of the element.
>
> and in the 'metaphor' this represnts
> a certain stability to given underlying
> knowledge bits.
>
> but in the electronic reality from which
> the metaphor is taken there is already
> a considerable bit of probablistic information
> in the inert cores themselves.
>
> so anyway, running around wondering if rocks
> will or will not fall to the ground when you drop them
> becomes entirely meaningless to question after
> roughly 15 times dropping a rock from your
> hand and watching it fall each time.
>
> where statistically speaking, for a thing like that,
>
>
> as the number of data points in a sample
> approches '15', the 'mean value'
> approaches the 'true value'
>
>
> so, -you- personally can convince yourself
> that a rock may fall out of your hand and
> jettison itself out of the earth's gravitational
> field and fly to the moon,
>
> but, for all practical purposes,
> it ain't never gunna happen.
>
> one can easily 'rest' upon the idea
> that gravity is rather changeless.
>
> and then avoid taking one step too many
> near a considerably steep precipice.
>
>
>> RAW uses the idea of 'quantum reality tunnels'
>> to good effect throughout his writings...
>
>
> he probably doesn't know what he's talking
> about but uses 'exciting' and 'modern'
> verbage to sell books.
>
>
> i've never intimated that such a thing
> as 'imagination' does not exist nor that
> one cannot create environments that
> they may never visit in 'real life'
>
> but, difficulties may arise when you cannot
> grasp when an idea so 'imagined' will never
> play a part on 'real life'
>
> one may 'imagine' themselves flying
> off to Rigel and back in three nights,
>
> but for all practical purposes,
> it ain't never gunna happen.
>
> we test the spirit
>
> we examine ourselves.
>
> we make adjustments when necessary.
>
> we live in the real world.
>
> we become the crafted nexus
> between God and the material world.
>
> and we rely upon past advances
> to assist in carrying us in to
> future advances.
>
> we'd rather not focus on unreal pipedreams.
>
> we are not looking for escape.
>
> we dive in head first.
>
> or feet first, just don't
> break your own back.
>
> metaphor and reality sometimes are the same thing.
>
> etcetera etcetera etcetera



St. Dave
2004-10-18 06:30:51 EST


> 'cores of knowledge -are- variable
> because atomic states are variable'
> (or so you believe)
>
> 'extends the metaphor'
> beyond its reasonable limits.
> beyond 'likeness' and off in to 'exactitude.'
> which it isn't.

followed by

> metaphor and reality sometimes are the same thing.

Which one is it Tim?
Are metaphors 'real' things?

St. Dave
Unwashed and somewhat slightly dazed




Timothy Sutter
2004-10-18 07:55:28 EST
St. Dave wrote:

> > 'cores of knowledge -are- variable
> > because atomic states are variable'
> > (or so you believe)

> > 'extends the metaphor'
> > beyond its reasonable limits.
> > beyond 'likeness' and off in to 'exactitude.'
> > which it isn't.

> followed by

> > metaphor and reality sometimes are the same thing.

> Which one is it Tim?

those two statements are not opposed,
one to the other. so, a 'which is it'
is not required.


-you -over-extend -that- metaphor.

the electronic reality is a real thing.

the metaphor and the electronic
reality are the same thing
-to a point-.

your interjection is beyond
the limits of the metaphor.

ask yourself this;

in a particle acceplerator, has anyone smashed
an atomic nucleus of an atom larger than hydrogen?

that is, has a helium nucleus been smashed?

has a lithium nucleus been smashed?

has an iron nucleus ever been smashed?

proton accellerators use ionized hydrogen
for the most part, that is, they smash two
beams of ionized subatomic particles.

so, if you can not show that a lithium
nucleus has ever been smashed, for all
you know, it can not be smashed.

and so, it's -protons- may very well be
buried away from ever being smashed up.

with me so far?

===
you have no idea that an particle larger
than a proton can be reduced to quarks.
===

that is, in the aggregate of protons, plural,
and electron clouds beneath which are buried
these nuclei, statements about quarks become
irrelevant.

and so, if you cannot demonstrate that the nucleus
of an atom which is itself buried beneath an inert core
of electrons can be even exposed in any way, much less,
smashed to bits, any 'probablistic' functionality it
-may- possess, plays no role in the chemistry of the element.


but like i said, you don't have to dig that deep
to find a probalistic bit in an inert core,

the electrons in the inert core are whizzing about...etc.

but are not involved in the chemistry of the element.


yes, potassium and sodium, which have the same
generalized single electron in their valence
orbitals, have notably different
chemical reactivities,

but the single electrons are
in different environments.

they have different inert cores.

and so, we may use, albeit, very carefully,
axiomatic logic with no real danger of falling
headlong into a vortex of anihilation.


for instance, ice melts.

this is taken as a given and ideas of
entropy are built upon this very simple 'axiom'


no one proves that 'ice melts'

it is simply accepted as a given, and a superstructure
of relevant understanding is built upon that thing itself.


if -you- would like to suggest that 'quarks do the red hot polka'
from within the ice molecules, and therefore, someday, ice may
turn into some other form of matter of which we have heretofore
been entirely unawares, -you- can do so,

but, that does nothing to circumvent nor destroy the very
useful aspects of the simple and self evident observation
that 'ice melts'



> Are metaphors 'real' things?


poorly formulated question.

of course a metaphor is a real thing.

i was just using one the other day.

it served my purposes very well.


have you ever taken a handful
of quarks and produced a proton?

Timothy Sutter
2004-10-18 08:20:19 EST
St. Dave wrote:

> Which one is it Tim?

this is somewhat odd, though.

laughing boy asks me this question;

"which is it?"

laughing boy wants a 'non-relativistic' response.

a metaphor is an actual thing.

--
met·a·phor n.
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that
ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate
another, thus making an implicit comparison.
--

a figure of speach is a reality.
therefore, a metaphor is a reality.

'reality is a canned ham'

well, a canned ham is a real thing.

all real things are not, however, canned hams.

but 'which is it?'

now -there's- a new idea for laughing boy.


reduce lead to quarks.

Timothy Sutter
2004-10-18 09:47:55 EST
> St. Dave wrote:

> > Which one is it Tim?

Timothy Sutter wrote:
> this is somewhat odd, though.

> laughing boy asks me this question;

> "which is it?"

don't worry, i'm proud of you.

in general, 'which is it' is
a reasonable line of inquiry.

but, 'the perpetual rotary engine'
has thrown a piston, burned its cam,
fried its valves and mangled its crankshaft.

scrap heap.
Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron