The Deep

[Justatruthseeker]

What the F are you arguing with here?

No one is saying chemical bonds don't have an electrostatic nature! Normally people differentiate between IONIC bonds and COVALENT bonds.

But when you took Mainframes to task over the H-H bond in H2 and indicated it is a "hydrogen bond" that is where I drew the line.

"Hydrogen bonds" are NOT the same as covalent bonds. They simply aren't.

Bonds between two hydrogen molecules are COVALENT BONDS DUE TO THE SHARING OF THE 1s ELECTRONS.

"Hydrogen bonds" on the other hand are electrostatic attractions between two molecules with dipole moments as we see between two different water molecules.

What are you on about? Honestly.

Because you totally ignored what I said earlier.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827703-28/#post66047838

That electrostatic interaction between the dipoles of water molecules, is the same electrostatic force between electrons and the nucleus. In dipole bonds the electrons are already bound and can not share in this bond, but the internal charges can, and do. It is simply a weaker bond when between quarks and other quarks in different atoms. That's what that dipole moment is, let's not forget that shall we?

Electric dipole moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, the electric dipole moment is a measure of the separation of positive and negative electrical charges in a system of electric charges, that is, a measure of the charge system's overall polarity."

That you refuse to accept science is a wonder above all wonders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_polarity

"In chemistry, polarity refers to a separation of electric charge leading to a molecule or its chemical groups having an electric dipole or multipole moment. Polar molecules interact through dipole–dipole intermolecular forces and hydrogen bonds."

But if you knew what that meant you wouldn't be so confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermolecular_force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intramolecular_force

 

[MikeCarra]

In dipole bonds the electrons are already bound and can not share in this bond, but the internal charges can, and do.

You're going to have to graph that sentence out for me. NOt sure what you are saying.

In a "Dipole bond" ( I'll assume you mean an electrostatic attraction based on neighboring dipoles or a dipole-induced-dipole attraction, or a hydrogen bond) the electrons in the more electronegative end of the molecule are attracted (electrostatically) to the less electronegative end of the molecule which causes the molecule to be attracted to the opposite side of a neighboring molecule that has a similar dipole.

It is simply a weaker bond when between quarks and other quarks in different atoms.

And a dramatically DIFFERENT type of bond. Quarks are held together with GLUONS. The gluons are the MEDIATORS OF THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE. Electromagnetic attraction is mediated by PHOTONS.

The strong nuclear force is MUCH stronger than the electromagnetic force. (HyperPhysics).

And of course the strong nuclear force and quarks don't really have to be considered to understand chemical bonds.

That's what that dipole moment is, let's not forget that shall we?

The electric dipole moment is NOT due to the strong nuclear force.

In the case of hydrogen bonds the electric dipole moment between O and H in a single water molecule is due to the electronegativity of the atoms. Oxygen being MUCH MORE ELECTRONEGATIVE than Hydrogen. This is both a function of the distance out from the nucleus that the electrons in the valence shell are as well as the intervening shells and their "sheilding" capabilities.

That you refuse to accept science is a wonder above all wonders.

I have never once refused to accept any of the science in chemistry here on this thread. This is what I find mysterious about your points. You seem to be mushing things up all over the place (comparing hydrogen bonds to the non-polar covalent sigma bonds in a hydrogen molecule and now your conflation of quarks and the strong nuclear force with dipole moments).

But if you knew what that meant you wouldn't be so confused.

What is confusing me is why you seem to be mashing up all these unrelated topics.

No one is debating whether electrostatics play a role in chemical bonding. No one is debating whether electrons are negative and protons are positive. What we have been attempting to do is to get you to kind of ease up on your rush to throw hydrogen bonding into the same bus as a non-polar covalent bond that is a sigma bond molecular orbital in the hydrogen molecule (H2).

 

[lesliedellow]

That you refuse to accept science is a wonder above all wonders.

Coming from somebody as scientifically illiterate as Justa, a sentence like that never fails to leave me feeling totally incredulous.

 

[RealityCheck]

Justa, every post you make just digs your hole deeper. You keep demonstrating that you understand less about science than I thought you already did. I can only hope you will bother to one day crack open a science book and actualky understand it rather than.... what youre doing here.

 

[mzungu]

Justa, you really need a science education. You copy & paste articles and links of which you have little to no understanding. This does little to help your arguments.

Either you are too young to have acquired the pertinent erudition or you are misguided into thinking you know everything.

Perhaps you should humble yourself and for once listen before you speak, and perhaps you may learn something!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And a dramatically DIFFERENT type of bond. Quarks are held together with GLUONS. The gluons are the MEDIATORS OF THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE. Electromagnetic attraction is mediated by PHOTONS.

Yes, the most idiotic theory man ever devised.

Photons are a "by-product" and not a cause or mediator of anything. So photons are traveling back and forth between protons and electrons, mediating the EM forces between them? Electric fields and magnetic fields are made of photons???? Photons are "emitted" from every atom in existence, even if you place a lone atom in a sealed box where no outside influence could enter. That atom would still emit EM fields, with no photons mediating anything.

Photons are emitted when energy levels increase. That atom in a sealed box continues to emit radiation in all frequencies, despite your claim that only incoming photons mediate that em force.

You can't justify that pseudo-scientific claim, not in the least.

 

[RealityCheck]

Yes, the most idiotic theory man ever devised.

Photons are a "by-product" and not a cause or mediator of anything. So photons are traveling back and forth between protons and electrons, mediating the EM forces between them? Electric fields and magnetic fields are made of photons???? Photons are "emitted" from every atom in existence, even if you place a lone atom in a sealed box where no outside influence could enter. That atom would still emit EM fields, with no photons mediating anything.

Photons are emitted when energy levels increase. That atom in a sealed box continues to emit radiation in all frequencies, despite your claim that only incoming photons mediate that em force.

No. To everything you said here. No.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. To everything you said here. No.

No. To everything you said here. No.

That was easy, now prove it. Can't, can you.