another hexagon at poles?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by nebel, Dec 7, 2016.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,576
    Quite. There is no link at all. Hexagonal packing of atoms in crystal lattices is driven by the geometry of closely packed spheres. The pseudo-hexagons here (they have curved, not straight, lines) are standing waves. So utterly different reasons.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,576
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mark Slater Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    So the idea that in spiralling galaxies being shown/observed to have 120degree angles in their structure, mainly the arms, I think is due to magnetic alignment, like that when magnetic are placed on a table and when the poles are opposite they keep a distance from the one you are moving,

    here is the exmple.

    If stars and planets have any magnetism, this is how they too would 'work', along the horizontal plane. Their polarity varies, but they keep their distance just like magnets....

    So this too should 'work' for the microscopic, after all, each nucleus is very far away from its valance shell. So when atoms in the air are swirling around, i think there is a specific geometry they will under pressure fall into, and out of? Does thios help you understand the ideas that magnetism play a cental role, which has been misinterpreted with angular momentum etc
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,576
    No, it just sounds like more garbled nonsense. You are out of your depth: learn some science.
     
  8. Mark Slater Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    I learnt much about particle physics early this year, I wanted to graphically create the positions off possible electrons, in their shells. by june i was ending my research from particle physics and it didnt look good, as soonas I went into Quantum field theory i realised i wasted my time with particles, as field theory works,magnetic fieldswork to describe and explain all the phenomenon we observe. we have missed some fundimental facts about magnetism and had to use various other descriptions which never explain the observations. i assume you are not a field theorist, just and atomist
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,576
    None of the above. I am a chemist by training. And that means I have learnt about the QM model of the behaviour of atoms and molecules and how it accounts for what we observe. The predominant interaction - by far - is the electrostatic one. Magnetism is called on explain some phenomena, but you cannot a create a model of the atom in line with observation by relying on magnetism. It is crazy.

    My annoyance with your posts however is not due to that. It is due to your bizarre and unfounded assertions, for example that the packing of atoms in a crystal is due somehow to magnetism and furthermore that this somehow accounts for the approximately hexagon pattern seen in the polar atmosphere if planets. Assertions like that are just mad.
     
  10. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    You mean the rare and precious crystals imbedded in my linear chi flux copper bracelet magnetised in the hidden tomb of Aztec Chicka-Ban-Ban by packing the atoms in a hexagon pattern will not stop me get flu?

    Oh how cruel can life be?

    Humpty tricked again

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Mark Slater Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    What i mean with the magnetic geometry is kind of to do with blood cells having iron in so our body needs iron to make a protein called hemoglobin, this is diamagnetic, countering external magnetic fields. so how would atoms next to each other in a 3d environment, closest possible placement lie,I made it inAdobe After Effects. I got a weird prime number idea out of it, but it helped realised atomic geometry better
     
  12. Mark Slater Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    I looked at this and othersights
    https://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/cohen_stix.html

    so this crystal is hexagonal, with its longest length dictating its magetic 'flow' surrounded by iron, becoming more ball shaped the further we 'go' out. Magnetic strengths align 'north' its a tight centripetal vortex...... do atoms which are magnetic align like hcp? could be? not fused
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,576
    Ah, OK. I withdraw my previous suggestion that you learn some science.

    Happy Christmas.
     
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,123
    I don't know.

    "..... how would atoms next to each other in a 3d environment, closest possible placement lie...."?

    Not tell the truth perhaps???

    Oh wait lie, as in forming patterns

    Don't know. Sorry can't help. Really thought I had a answer there. Sorry.

    Humpty embarrassed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,372
    Wait. Snowflakes are hexagonal too. The Jovian and Saturnian hexagons probably have something to do with snowflakes.

    Gas giant planetary storms and snowflakes are superficially alike in a single way - even if that way is separated by 11 orders of magnitude - and despite otherwise PHYSICALLY HAVING NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

    Seems legit.
     
  16. Mark Slater Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    Hi,
    i just wanted to state. I certainly know that standing waves have a lot to do with atomic alignment. but in all of the descriptions and explanations that have been made, magnetism is no where to be seen, it has been over looked. and the new observations to do with magnetic viewing film and Ken wheelers rather interesting 'TV grid" experiments showing a grid rotate because of magnetism has brought new insight to how magnetism plays an important role. as every experiment ever made on earth is within a magnetic field therefore magnetism has to be involved in the equations or results..... which it generally isn't. thus the equations are a mistake
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,576
    This is tosh. If you believe magnetic effects have been neglected in descriptions of matter, you need to point out, here on this forum, not by references to silly YouTube videos, what phenomena are better explained by magnetism than by the current explanation. "Better" would mean either a simpler explanation or one that accounts for more phenomena.

    Give us your best and clearest example, showing what the magnetic explanation is and why it is superior.
     

Share This Page