The Deep

[Justatruthseeker]

OF COURSE I DIDN"T WATCH THE VIDEO! It's OVER AN HOUR IN LENGTH!

But, apparently you find the time to read all about Fairie Dust theories.

If you can't shorten it to the equations I asked for then I will understand how little of your own hypothesis you even value.

This is how science is done. Yes, you can reference them, but don't just debate by puking up SOMEONE ELSE'S 1+ HOUR VIDEOS!

This is absurd. I've got to get back to my REAL research (PVC chemistry).

I don't have time for someone who can't even support their own pet hypothesis.

k-thnx-bye.

In other words you must rely on other peoples hypothesis and numbers and figures because you can't do your own, but expect me to not rely on others???????

In other words good-bye because you got caught in your own reasoning about no patience for others hypothesis, when you yourself are relying on those hypothesis by others?????

That double edged sword bites deeply doesn't it? Those that live in glass houses should not attempt to throw stones. Don't ask for what you yourself are unable to provide.

Had you bothered to actually read my posts you would know what my hypothesis is, which is supported by every single laboratory experiment ever done.

 

[lesliedellow]

In other words you must rely on other peoples hypothesis and numbers and figures because you can't do your own, but expect me to not rely on others???????

Other people's hypotheses are worth a whole lot more than somebody who has never taken one science class in his life. Especially when those opinions come from people who are trained in their discipline, and who base their ideas upon several centuries of scientific endeavour. As opposed to an idiot who knows nothing, but pulls endless garbage out of his own empty head.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The low temperature atomic H + O2 on a catalyst has been observed, though. Did you read the article?

And so was the heat due to atomic bombardment was it not???

Which is?

Who knows? Certainly not them.

""it remains unclear whether D2O is formed at 10 - 12 K or during heating.""

Not really. It is not insignificant, but on earth it can produce it without a catalyst with the amount of energy in a spark or a flame. It is something like >400kJ/mol to hydrolytically split the H2 molecule which is the first step.

We agree electrical energy is required.

Joule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second."

Overall the reaction is thermodynamically spontaneous, but kinetically disfavorable. It WILL go either by overcoming the Ea or simply lowering the Ea with a catalyst.

A catalyst, like negative silicates sputtered off of a surface????

And even the article itself uses atomic hydrogen. So it isn't like they are starting off with H2 and running the plain reaction.

Actually since it takes more energy to bond atomic hydrogen than H2, you require more energy than needed, since we start with hydrogen to begin with in the real universe.

Stanford SOLAR Center -- Ask A Solar Physicist FAQs - Answer
"The composition of the solar wind is a mixture of materials found in the solar plasma, composed of ionized hydrogen (electrons and protons) with an 8% component of helium (alpha particles) and trace amounts of heavy ions and atomic nuclei: C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Si, S, and Fe ripped apart by heating of the Sun's outer atmosphere, that is, the corona (Feldman et al., 1998). "

What process exactly are you saying is the "only" way to form water?

The only way known.

Chemical bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms that allows the formation of chemical substances that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" such as covalent or ionic bonds and "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding."

Hydrogen bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A hydrogen bond is the electromagnetic attractive interaction between polar molecules, in which hydrogen (H) is bound to a highly electronegative atom, such as nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) or fluorine (F)."

We know how catalysts work. NONE of this is particularly high level chemistry.

Do you?

Catalysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Catalysis is the increase in the rate of a chemical reaction of one or more reactants due to the participation of an additional substance called a catalyst."

So a catalyst increases the electrostatic forces due to it's own electrostatic forces????? After all, we are talking about chemical bonding here are we not????

I see that you don't really do science. Remember, hypotheses have to start somewhere. What proof of whatever process you favor do you have?

See above, every chemistry class you should have paid more attention to in your studies.

Do you think the ONLY way to explain the existence of water is giant electrical currents through space?

Do you know of another way hydrogen bonds are formed????

Why do the commas emit x-rays only when they come within 3AU of the sun?

Because the electric field of the sun increases the closer one get's to the sun. X-rays require highly energetic interactions. Even mainstream admits to the process, they just downplay it.

Swift Detects X-Ray Emissions from Comets

"This interaction between the solar wind and comet has another effect: charge exchange....

....Energetic solar wind ions impact the coma, capturing electrons from neutral atoms. As the electrons become attached to their new parent nuclei (the solar wind ion) [hydrogen bonding occurring here - my comment], energy is released in the form of X-rays. As the coma can measure several thousand miles in diameter, the comet atmosphere has a huge cross section, allowing a vast number of these charge exchange events to occur [hence lots of H2O observed in the coma - my comment]. Comets suddenly become significant X-ray generators as they get blasted by solar wind ions. The total power output from the coma can top a billion Watts."

Hmmm, wonder where that energy to bind hydrogen bonds could come from?????

From what I gather, scientists believe these to be the product of "charge exchange" as the SOLAR WIND IONS bombard the "ion trail" from the comet. As the electrons are attached to new parent nuclei they produce x-rays (much as normal x-rays are produced here on earth in x-ray tubes, only instead of coming in from outside the atom, they are simply changing energy levels within the atom. It's been a while since I've worked with XRD and x-ray tubes, so I'm a bit rusty) (LINKY)

No, bombards the "coma" not the ion trail.

"Energetic solar wind ions impact the coma... As the coma can measure several thousand miles in diameter, the comet atmosphere has a huge cross section, allowing a vast number of these charge exchange events to occur."

Are we debating whether charged particles exist in the solar wind here?

Nope, that's a given. We are debating why mainstream is ignoring that electrical interaction?

Heliospheric current sheet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m². The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km near the orbit of the Earth. The underlying magnetic field is called the interplanetary magnetic field, and the resulting electric current forms part of the heliospheric current circuit."


A small electrical current but increasing in strength closer to the sun. I agree with science, it certainly takes more energy to produce x-rays than hydrogen bonds.

But we should expect nothing less from plasma EM interactions as the negatively charged comet (asteroid), moves into the positive field of the sun and electrical interactions become more pronounced and unstable.

Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Pinches may also become unstable, and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rays and gamma rays, and also neutrons and synchrotron radiation."

And hence more unstable on the sun itself. Sun or solar wind, we are discussing plasma after all. Not solids, liquids and gasses.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

EDIT: Those extreme electromagnetic disturbances:

Hot Topics in Chandra Observations of the Solar System
"Hyakutake was the third brightest X-ray source in the solar system after the Sun and Jupiter."

Simply fade into the background emission with distance so are no longer detectable.

http://sirrah.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~mira/tmp/science_pdf/1042.pdf

"The x-ray brightness gradually decreases with increasing cometocentric distance (r), with a dependence of about r^-1 or r^-2, merging with the background emission at distances of 10^5 to 10^6 k."

So one cannot say as a fact that they do not start at the same time the comet begins to brighten. Since they do only generally start to brighten 5-7 AU from the sun and then the x-ray emissions gradually increase in strength, until they can be discerned from the background radiation. Unlike the visible portion thereof against a black background, so is readily distinguishable.

So if the background was white, how close would it be before it could be distinguished from that background in visible light as well? Say 3 AU on average?


Chromoscope



.

 

[MikeCarra]

In other words you must rely on other peoples hypothesis and numbers and figures because you can't do your own, but expect me to not rely on others???????

NO! I mean, just shorten your hypothesis into chunks. Cite your references, but don't make me watch SOMEONE ELSE'S 1+ HOUR YOUTUBE!

In other words good-bye because you got caught in your own reasoning about no patience for others hypothesis, when you yourself are relying on those hypothesis by others?????

Just outline, using your keyboard, the highlights of your hypothesis. Cite your source (a Youtube video if you like), but I'm not going to watch a 1+ hour Youtube complete with tinkly music and philosophical musings to get to the meat of it.

I am simply not that INTERESTED in the topic. If you understand what it is you support you can easily summarize it for me.

Had you bothered to actually read my posts you would know what my hypothesis is, which is supported by every single laboratory experiment ever done.

To be honest I have read your posts but I am not entirely certain what it is that you find to be so "fairie dust" about basic chemistry. It has yet to actually make any real sense what, exactly is the bee in your bonnet.

 

[MikeCarra]

We agree electrical energy is required.

Joule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second."

Not all energy is electrical. The Joule is used to measure energy. NOT JUST ELECTRIC CURRENT-derived heat.

Just look at the wikipedia quote you provided.

We use Joules in chemistry ALL THE TIME. Not all energy is electrical energy.

A catalyst, like negative silicates sputtered off of a surface????

But YOU said it was from the Oxygen FROM the silicates. THAT IS NOT A CATALYST.

If you break up the silicate to make free oxygen you are not using the silicate as a catalyst.

Sorry if you were confused by the role of a catalyst vs a reactant.

Actually since it takes more energy to bond atomic hydrogen than H2,

Huh???? So you are saying that

H + O2 --> H2O

requires more energy than

H2 + O2 --> H2O

??? Care to back that up with an actual ENERGY VALUE?

Chemical bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A chemical bond is an attraction between atoms that allows the formation of chemical substances that contain two or more atoms. The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction. The strength of chemical bonds varies considerably; there are "strong bonds" such as covalent or ionic bonds and "weak bonds" such as dipole–dipole interactions, the London dispersion force and hydrogen bonding."

Hydrogen bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A hydrogen bond is the electromagnetic attractive interaction between polar molecules, in which hydrogen (H) is bound to a highly electronegative atom, such as nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) or fluorine (F)."

Ummm, not sure what your point is here. Yes, H2O contains chemical bonds.

And yes, OXYGEN is much more electronegative than H which provides a dipole to the covalent H-O bond which results in a molecule prone to hydrogen bonding.

(I hope you actually understand the difference between a polar covalent bond like O-H and a hydrogen bond...right? I mean you don't think those are the SAME thing do you?)

Do you?

Catalysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Catalysis is the increase in the rate of a chemical reaction of one or more reactants due to the participation of an additional substance called a catalyst."

So a catalyst increases the electrostatic forces due to it's own electrostatic forces?????

Ummm, not quite. Catalysts function in a variety of ways, some of which simply do nothing more than "holding" one reactant in a favorable position such that the other reactant is more likely to "hit" it correctly to drive the reaction.

Here's an example:

This is an example of how a catalyst can assist the reaction of H2 and Ethene. The catalyst holds the H2 and allows it to break up into two H atoms which can then migrate over and react with an H2C=CH2 molecule who, upon adsorption to the catalyst surface results in a single C-C bond.
(SOURCE)


This isn't how all catalysts work, but it's an elegant and simple mechanism that doesn't require Birkland currents or whatever.

The idea of a catalyst is, it effectively provides a lower activation energy pathway versus a non-catalyzed process. Nothing "magical" there.

Do you know of another way hydrogen bonds are formed????

I am beginning to think YOU don't know the difference between a polar-covalent O-H bond and a hydrogen bond!

Let's see. Here's what a Hydrogen Bond is:

Oxygen is more electronegative than H, so when it forms a covalent bondwith hydrogen it pulls more of the electrons to itself. This leaves a PARTIAL POSITIVE CHARGE on the Hydrogen, and a partial negative charge on the oxygen.

These partial postive and negative charges act to attract oppositely charged molecules. Like OTHER WATER MOLECULES.

These "hydrogen bonds" are NOT covalent bonds, they are simply electrostatic attraction.

Hydrogen bonds are weak, covalent bonds are SHARING OF ELECTRONS IN A BOND.

Those "dashed lines" are NOT COVALENT BONDS. They are weak electrostatic interactions. The H is attracted to the Oxygen of ANOTHER water molecule.

Hydrogen bonds amount to about 5-30kJ/mol, whereas the bond dissociation energy of an O-H covalent bond is something like >400kJ/mol

These are NOT the same things.

No, bombards the "coma" not the ion tail.

There are apparently two things flinging off the comet. The neutral dust Coma and the stream of ionized materials (ion tail) (SOURCE)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

NO! I mean, just shorten your hypothesis into chunks. Cite your references, but don't make me watch SOMEONE ELSE'S 1+ HOUR YOUTUBE!

I almost always cite references. I do not rely on Fairie Dust.

Just outline, using your keyboard, the highlights of your hypothesis. Cite your source (a Youtube video if you like), but I'm not going to watch a 1+ hour Youtube complete with tinkly music and philosophical musings to get to the meat of it.

But I bet if I was arguing with you and presented an hour long video on Dark Matter, you would find the time????

I am simply not that INTERESTED in the topic. If you understand what it is you support you can easily summarize it for me.

Exactly, because I am not supporting Fairie Dust that has NEVER been observed in the laboratory on one single occasion. EVER. So like you I could never present laboratory evidence against my hypothesis.

To be honest I have read your posts but I am not entirely certain what it is that you find to be so "fairie dust" about basic chemistry. It has yet to actually make any real sense what, exactly is the bee in your bonnet.

The fact that chemistry works by electrical processes, that you then ignore in every other theory mainstream has????? I mean they even hold it up as the possible source for life on this planet, then ignore it thereafter.

You have a universe requiring 73% of some form of unknown magical Dark Energy in a claimed electrically neutral universe.

There is nothing static in electrostatic processes. You fail to understand what static electricity really is. As you fail to understand electrostatic reactions.

What is Static Electricity ?


Can we just call it what it is? High Voltage.

 

[lesliedellow]

Exactly, because I am not supporting Fairie Dust that has NEVER been observed in the laboratory on one single occasion. EVER. So like you I could never present laboratory evidence against my hypothesis.

Please idiot, do what he asks, and give him the benefit of your degree level training in chemistry.

 

[Mainframes]

Chemistry does indeed rely on electrical processes, primarily electrostatic attraction. This does not mean that electricity is the prevailing force in all other universal processes.

Gravity is the primary driving force behind the fusion in stars but this does not mean gravity is even a consideration in chemistry or biological processes.

All things have their place and certain forces are more or less relevant in different situations. Eg we don't apply relativistic mechanics to calculating the speed of a motor vehicle but we can't just use Newtonian mechanics to describe the orbit of Mercury.

To conclude: whilst electricity and electrostatic forces are important for chemistry and atomic and molecular structure, it really does not have much effect on a universal scale.

 

[Mainframes]

You are still getting hydrogen bonding incorrect.

The bond between hydrogen and oxygen, nitrogen or fluorine is NOT a hydrogen bond, it is a covalent bond. However the presence of the hydrogen and one of these three elements in a bond creates a polar molecule in which the charge tends to be distributed unevenly. This uneven charge gives very slight positive and negative charge at either 'end' of the molecule. Other polar molecules are attracted to this charge.

These bonds are very weak and only really cause changes in physical properties, such as crystalline structure and melting and boiling points. The bonds are not chemical and do not give rise to new molecules.

 

[MikeCarra]

You are still getting hydrogen bonding incorrect.

I attempted to explain this to him in an earlier post. It does seem that he is conflating the O-H polar covalent bond with a hydrogen bond.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not all energy is electrical. The Joule is used to measure energy. NOT JUST ELECTRIC CURRENT-derived heat.

Just look at the wikipedia quote you provided.

We use Joules in chemistry ALL THE TIME. Not all energy is electrical energy.



But YOU said it was from the Oxygen FROM the silicates. THAT IS NOT A CATALYST.

Because energy can transform into different forms, be it electrical, or heat caused by electrical interactions, since that heat is electromagnetic radiation.

I don't need a catalyst. I am not starting with atomic hydrogen and having to first strip it apart. I am starting directing with H2 emitted in the solar plasma interacting in the coma. I would only need a catalyst, if I first wanted to strip apart atomic hydrogen, those very silicates involved in those surface interactions. I only need a catalyst when we discuss the direct formation of H2O upon the surface itself.

If you break up the silicate to make free oxygen you are not using the silicate as a catalyst.

But we are using it as a catalyst when with surface events it contributes to the reaction through electrostatic interactions, which is after all, all a catalyst does. It contributes to the hydroxyl radicals.

Selectivity of hydrogen peroxide decomposi... [Water Sci Technol. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Sorry if you were confused by the role of a catalyst vs a reactant.

Sorry if you were confused by surface events verses what happens in the coma with those hydroxyl radicals from catalytic events.

Huh???? So you are saying that

H + O2 --> H2O

requires more energy than

H2 + O2 --> H2O

??? Care to back that up with an actual ENERGY VALUE?

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort, because H+O2 is not H20 to begin with,

Hydroperoxyl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nor is H2+O2, H2O either.

Hydrogen peroxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I'm stating it as a fact, that atomic hydrogen H requires less energy to bond than molecular hydrogen H2.

Hydrogen energies and spectrum

Hydrogen atom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The H–H bond is one of the toughest bonds in chemistry,"

Because you missed this part in your studies.

"For example, a water molecule contains two hydrogen atoms, but does not contain atomic hydrogen (which would refer to isolated hydrogen atoms)."

Ummm, not sure what your point is here. Yes, H2O contains chemical bonds.

And yes, OXYGEN is much more electronegative than H which provides a dipole to the covalent H-O bond which results in a molecule prone to hydrogen bonding.

(I hope you actually understand the difference between a polar covalent bond like O-H and a hydrogen bond...right? I mean you don't think those are the SAME thing do you?)

Why would I confuse polar covalent bonds (hydrogen bonding) with covalent bonds like you are?

"A hydrogen bond is the electromagnetic attractive interaction between polar molecules, in which hydrogen (H) is bound to a highly electronegative atom, such as nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) or fluorine (F). The name hydrogen bond is something of a misnomer, as it is not a true bond but a particularly strong dipole-dipole attraction, and should not be confused with a covalent bond."

Intermolecular force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Dipole-dipole interactions are electrostatic interactions between permanent dipoles in molecules. These interactions tend to align the molecules to increase attraction (reducing potential energy)"

Why would I confuse the electrostatic interactions as being other than what they are unless I was trying to shift the topic away from electrical activities?????

Ummm, not quite. Catalysts function in a variety of ways, some of which simply do nothing more than "holding" one reactant in a favorable position such that the other reactant is more likely to "hit" it correctly to drive the reaction.



This is an example of how a catalyst can assist the reaction of H2 and Ethene. The catalyst holds the H2 and allows it to break up into two H atoms which can then migrate over and react with an H2C=CH2 molecule who, upon adsorption to the catalyst surface results in a single C-C bond.
(SOURCE)

Agreed, so those silicates tend to hold the electrons in place while the ions bombard them, freeing up negative oxygen molecules. Which lead to the "surface" events taking place, but not the coma events.

This isn't how all catalysts work, but it's an elegant and simple mechanism that doesn't require Birkland currents or whatever.

But then I am not trying to tell you that carbon to carbon covalent bonds are the same thing as hydrogen bonds, since they are not similar and should not be confused.

"...a particularly strong dipole-dipole attraction, and should not be confused with a covalent bond."

Carbon–carbon bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A carbon–carbon bond is a covalent bond between two carbon atoms."

I am beginning to think YOU don't know the difference between a polar-covalent O-H bond and a hydrogen bond!

I'm beginning to think you don't understand that there is no difference and continue to confuse it with covalent bonding.

Hydrogen bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A hydrogen bond is the electromagnetic attractive interaction between polar molecules, in which hydrogen (H) is bound to a highly electronegative atom, such as nitrogen (N), oxygen (O) or fluorine (F). The name hydrogen bond is something of a misnomer, as it is not a true bond but a particularly strong dipole-dipole attraction, and should not be confused with a covalent bond."

Intermolecular force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Dipole-dipole interactions are electrostatic interactions between permanent dipoles in molecules. These interactions tend to align the molecules to increase attraction (reducing potential energy)"

I also understand what a dipole is.

Dipole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In physics, there are several kinds of dipole:

• An electric dipole is a separation of positive and negative charges. The simplest example of this is a pair of electric charges of equal magnitude but opposite sign, separated by some (usually small) distance. A permanent electric dipole is called an electret.
• A magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current. A simple example of this is a single loop of wire with some constant current through it."

Nor do I ignore what those dipole moments really are.


Dipole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Many molecules have such dipole moments due to non-uniform distributions of positive and negative charges on the various atoms."

And hence back to electrostatic interactions we go. The separation of positive and negative charges, whether at the atomic or subatomic level.

These "hydrogen bonds" are NOT covalent bonds, they are simply electrostatic attraction.

ALL bonds are electrostatic attractions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bond
"The bond is caused by the electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, either between electrons and nuclei, or as the result of a dipole attraction."


Covalent bonds are the electrostatic interactions between electrons and nuclei, verses the electrostatic hydrogen bond between internal dipoles. Until you get that false idea otherwise out of your head you will just continue to parrot Fairie Dust.

 

[MikeCarra]

I don't need a catalyst. I am not starting with atomic hydrogen and having to first strip it apart. I am starting directing with H2 emitted in the solar plasma interacting in the coma. I would only need a catalyst, if I first wanted to strip apart atomic hydrogen, those very silicates involved in those surface interactions. I only need a catalyst when we discuss the direct formation of H2O upon the surface itself.

Please, I'm begging you now: write out the equations for the reactions you are talking about.

Just, write them out.

I will be more than happy to discuss these reactions with you rationally if you just write them out.

I'm not going to watch a 1+ hour video just to find out what reactions you are talking about.

 

[Mainframes]

I'd like Justa to show how Silicon Dioxide can be split apart just through ionic collisions. The covalent bonds in SiO2 are incredibly strong and is the reason why the melting point of SiO2 is on the order of 1600C.

 

[Mainframes]

A covalent bond is not electrostatic attraction, it is the sharing of electron orbitals between nuclei. Usually, the originating reactants have opposing charges but this is to facilitate the oxidation and reduction process that allows electron sharing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Where are "your" sources?????


Chemical bond properties

"The forces that hold bonded atoms together are basically just the same kinds of electrostatic attractions that bind the electrons of an atom to its positively-charged nucleus; chemical bonding occurs when one or more electrons are simultaneously attracted to two nuclei."

https://skyweb.lind.sprnet.org/OnlineTexts/Chemistry/hc2nech06.pdf

"A chemical bond is a mutual electrical attraction between the nuclei and valence electrons of different atoms that binds the atoms together. Why are most atoms chemically bonded to each other? As independent particles, they are at relatively high potential energy. Nature, however, favors arrangements in which potential energy is minimized. This means that most atoms are less stable existing by themselves than when they are combined. By bonding with each other, atoms decrease in potential energy, thereby creating more stable arrangements of matter."


You all need to get the basics down first.


Bonding Basics

"In covalent bonding, both atoms are trying to attract electrons--the same electrons. Thus, the electrons are shared tightly between the atoms. The force of attraction that each atom exerts on the shared electrons is what holds the two atoms together"

Which should lead you to this:

Charged particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In physics, a charged particle is a particle with an electric charge. It may be an ion, such as a molecule or atom with a surplus or deficit of electrons relative to protons. It can be the electrons and protons themselves, as well as other elementary particles, like positrons. It may also be an atomic nucleus devoid of electrons, such as an alpha particle, a helium nucleus. Neutrons have no charge, so they are not charged particles unless they are part of a positively charged nucleus. Plasmas are a collection of charged particles, atomic nuclei and separated electrons, but can also be a gas containing a significant proportion of charged particles. Plasma is called the fourth state of matter because its properties are quite different from solids, liquids and gases."

Which should have led you to this.

Electric charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when placed in an electromagnetic field. There are two types of electric charges – positive and negative. Positively charged substances are repelled from other positively charged substances, but attracted to negatively charged substances; negatively charged substances are repelled from negative and attracted to positive. An object will be negatively charged if it has an excess of electrons, and will otherwise be positively charged or uncharged."


There IS NO Fairie Dust holding those electrons together, or the protons and electrons, or the sharing of electrons, merely their charge.

Stop ignoring what every single modern textbook will tell you, even the ones you claim to be reading. As a matter of fact "including" the ones you claim to be reading.

Unit 2: Atomic Theory and Bonding

 

[SelfSim]

Where are "your" sources?????
...
You all need to get the basics down first.
...
Which should lead you to this:
...
Which should have led you to this.
...
There IS NO Fairie Dust holding those electrons together, or the protons and electrons, or the sharing of electrons, merely their charge.
...
Stop ignoring what every single modern textbook will tell you, even the ones you claim to be reading. As a matter of fact "including" the ones you claim to be reading.

I've got an even better idea! ...

Why don't you stop telling knowledgeable people what to do, and what not to do?

After all, your being the main source of the very 'Fairie Dust' which blinds you to everything except the 'Fairie Dust' which also forms the only tenet of your world view, is not really a stable one for telling others what they should and shouldn't do, eh?

 

[Mainframes]

You need to check up covalent bonding. It is the sharing if electron orbitals and it is for thi reason why chemistry works the way it does.

It is why carbon is capable of four covalent bonds, as it has four electron orbitals free, and why oxygen can only form two covalent bonds.

Electron orbitals are the foundation of all chemistry.

 

[lesliedellow]

I've got an even better idea! ...

Why don't you stop telling knowledgeable people what to do, and what not to do?

No chance of that. The idiot will quite happily lecture a chemist on chemistry, a biologist on biology, a physicist on physics and just by way of a finale, a brain surgeon on brain surgery.

He could quite usefully make use of the services of the latter.

And all on the basis of what? On at least a high school level of education in science? Nope. On the basis of Wikipedia articles he is barely literate enough to understand, and, in fact, doesn't understand.

Whenever I think of Justa, I can't get out of my mind's eye a mental image of somebody who is barely turned fourteen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Electron orbitals are the foundation of all chemistry.

Exactly, and in physics electrons are bound to protons by the electrostatic charge between them, or did you miss that part of science???????

Binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"At the atomic level the atomic binding energy of the atom derives from electromagnetic interaction and is the energy required to disassemble an atom into free electrons and a nucleus. Electron binding energy is a measure of the energy required to free electrons from their atomic orbits. This is more commonly known as ionization energy."


Learn a little something.

14.7 Mass and energy

"
Nuclear masses are not what you would naively expect. For example, since the deuterium nucleus consists of one proton and one neutron, you might assume its mass is the sum of that of a proton and a neutron. It is not. It is less.
This weird effect is a consequence of Einstein’s famous relation

, in which

is energy,

mass, and

the speed of light, chapter 1.1.2. When the proton and neutron combine in the deuterium nucleus, they lower their total energy by the binding energy that keeps the two together. According to Einstein’s relation, that means that the mass goes down by the binding energy divided by

. In general, for a nucleus with

protons and

neutrons, are the mass of a lone proton respectively a lone neutron at rest, and

is the binding energy. This result is very important for nuclear physics, because mass is something that can readily be measured. Measure the mass accurately and you know the binding energy. In fact, even a normal hydrogen atom has a mass lower than that of a proton and electron by the 12.6 eV (electron volt) binding energy between proton and electron. But scaled down by

, the associated change in mass is negligible."






But you skipped your physics class didn't you.


Ionization energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Atomic ionization energy can be predicted by an analysis using electrostatic potential and the Bohr model of the atom, as follows (note that the derivation uses Gaussian units).
Consider an electron of charge -e and an atomic nucleus with charge +Ze, where Z is the number of protons in the nucleus. According to the Bohr model, if the electron were to approach and bind with the atom, it would come to rest at a certain radius a. The electrostatic potential V at distance a from the ionic nucleus, referenced to a point infinitely far away, is:

.

Since the electron is negatively charged, it is drawn inwards by this positive electrostatic potential. The energy required for the electron to "climb out" and leave the atom is:

"




Science knows no other way bub. You best go back to chemistry 101 and physics 101 and repeat those courses.


Learn the physics behind that chemistry.


Electric binding energy between electron proton


Chapter 2. Atomic Structure and Bonding


"

The Coulomb forces are simple: attractive between electrons and nuclei, repulsive between electrons and between nuclei. The force between atoms is given by a sum of all the individual forces, and the fact that the electrons are located outside the atom and the nucleus in the center.
When two atoms come very close, the force between them is always repulsive, because the electrons stay outside and the nuclei repel each other. Unless both atoms are ions of the same charge (e.g., both negative) the forces between atoms is always attractive at large internuclear distances r. Since the force is repulsive at small r, and attractive at small r, there is a distance at which the force is zero. This is the equilibrium distance at which the atoms prefer to stay.
The interaction energy is the potential energy between the atoms. It is negative if the atoms are bound and positive if they can move away from each other. The interaction energy is the integral of the force over the separation distance, so these two quantities are directly related. The interaction energy is a minimum at the equilibrium position. This value of the energy is called the bond energy, and is the energy needed to separate completely to infinity (the work that needs to be done to overcome the attractive force.) The strongest the bond energy, the hardest is to move the atoms, for instance the hardest it is to melt the solid, or to evaporate its atoms"


Because by ignoring electrical forces, you missed out on half your education.


Coulomb's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles...."


....Coulomb's law holds even within atoms, correctly describing the force between the positively charged atomic nucleus and each of the negatively charged electrons. This simple law also correctly accounts for the forces that bind atoms together to form molecules and for the forces that bind atoms and molecules together to form solids and liquids."




Just how long are you all going to stay uneducated about what is happening simply to hang onto stupid Fairie Dust beliefs??????