Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- From: Cliff <Clhuprich@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:12:38 -0400
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 22:31:59 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Cliff wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:23:40 GMT, BottleBob <bottlbob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Cliff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:21:24 -0500, "John Scheldroup"
>> >> <jschel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >Electromagnetic radiation is made when an atom absorbs energy.
>> >>
>> >> No, John.
>> >
>> >Cliff:
>> >
>> > This is one of your more irritating tactics.
>>
>> "No, John"?
>
>Cliff:
>
> LOL You know I wasn't speaking of your "No, John"? comment.
Perhaps you need to learn how to post then?
>Do you even know your doing it?
Did you?
>>
>> > The splitting up of
>> >someone's paragraph (complete thought), to make it appear they said
>> >something they didn't mean.
>>
>> Gee .... that looked like a sentence to me. And, as it was wrong,
>> what followed from it would be too, right?
>
> We're not English majors here, we all make errors of grammar and
>punctuation.
That's a poor excuse for being confused.
>John should have used a comma instead of a period. What
>sort of person would ignore the complete thought and focus on a matter
>of punctuation?
BottleBob?
>>
>> But "No, John." gets YOU upset all by it's self -- it's not,
>> after all, like you know what the subject is, now is it?
>
> Now you're just being silly since you think it will defect attention
>away from your own trolling or errors of comprehension.
"No, John"?
>> >> In some cases that would be "absorbs electromagnetic energy"
>> >> (a photon).
>> >
>> > Put John's paragraph back together and that's part of what he was
>> >saying. Here, let me do it for you.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >Electromagnetic radiation is made when an atom absorbs energy.
>> >> >The absorbed energy causes one or more electrons to change their
>> >> >locale within the atom. When the electron returns to its original
>> >> >position, an electromagnetic wave is produced. Depending on the
>> >> >kind of atom and the amount of energy, this electromagnetic radiation
>> >> >can take the form of heat, light, ultraviolet, or other electromagnetic waves.
>>
>> How many wrong things can you count in that?
>> Do you want to comment on tham all at once now or one by
>> one as they go by?
>> IF the former, provide an answer key so that we will know
>> which lint goes to which item.
>>
>> >> You have this confused with events that can change the quantum
>> >> states of electrons.
>> >
>> > Excuse me? John was just explaining the electromagnetic radiation
>> >emission when an electron falls to a lower energy orbital. I'm
>> >surprised you didn't understand what he was saying. Intentional
>> >obfuscation? Here's the way Encarta puts it:
>> >
>> >====================================================================
>> > Orbitals are grouped into shells, like the layers of an onion, around
>> >the nucleus. Each shell can contain a limited number of orbitals, which
>> >means that each shell can contain a limited number of electrons. Each
>> >shell corresponds to a certain level of energy, and all the electrons in
>> >the shell have this same level of energy. As the shells get farther from
>> >the nucleus, they can contain more electrons, and the electrons in the
>> >shells have higher energy. See also Chemistry: Electron Cloud.
>> >
>> >B Electrons and Light Emission
>> > When an atom's energy is at its minimum, it is said to be in a ground
>> >state. In this ground state, the atom's electrons occupy the innermost
>> >available shells, those closest to the nucleus. When atoms are excited
>> >by heat, by an electric current, or by light or some other form of
>> >radiation, the atoms' electrons can acquire energy and jump from an
>> >inner to an outer shell, leaving a vacancy in the inner shell. The atom
>> >seeks to shed this surplus energy, leading the electron in the outer
>> >orbit to fall back down to an inner vacancy. As it falls, the electron
>> >releases energy in the form of a photon, a tiny flash of light. The
>> >color of the light depends on the amount of energy emitted.
>>
>> >"Electron," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft
>> >Corporation. All rights reserved.
>> >========================================================================
>>
>> <Sheesh yet again !!!>
>>
>> Don't you grasp ANYTHING AT ALL yet?
>
> You didn't seem to grasp it when John said essentially the same thing.
And that might be material to your own errors exactly how?
>Why was that? His explanation seemed reasonably clear to me.
So what?
My statement(s) are quite correct.
BTW, Where's your answer key?
--
Cliff
.
- References:
- Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- From: BottleBob
- Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- From: BottleBob
- Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Prev by Date: Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Next by Date: Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|