On Jun 7, 10:10*am, john wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:16*am, PD wrote:

On Jun 7, 1:00*am, john wrote:

On Jun 6, 7:59*pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:

PD writes:
On Jun 6, 2:37=A0pm, john wrote:
When you are able to map the
pathways of the 30 individual electrons of Benzene
according to your 'model',
using AutoCad, or somesuch, please feel free
to squawk.
Actually, electrons in atoms don't have pathways per se, since
Newtonian trajectories are inconsistent with the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. So drawing pathways, with Autocad or Maya or a
#2 Ticonderoga pencil, is not a representation of reality, John.

That's just the biggest reason why your model fails, John. *Each one of
those 30 electrons has an exact position and velocity (and thus momentum)
at any given point in time. *Quantum Mechanics states that this is
impossible.

So, you think because my model succeeds in
explaining Benzene, it has failed because
your model says it can't be done?

Drawing a path for electrons to go is not an "explanation", John. It
is not comparable to any *measurable* quantities.
What you've done is like coloring in a picture of an atom to claim
that protons are red and neutrons are blue. It explains nothing.

Well, the proponents of QM are like the
"""model""" itself: way too slippery to get a grip
on- twisting and turning away from any 'logical' explanation.

That depends on what you are calling "logical".
If a theory is logical, that normally means that it is internally
inconsistent and that the conclusions follow from the premises.
If by "logical" you have something else in mind -- say, "appeals to
common sense" or "is like things I'm familiar with from ordinary
experience", then I'm afraid you're out of luck. Scientific theories
do not have that burden to demonstrate, and so there is nothing to
"twist and turn away from".


Proponents of QM actually eschew logic- braying out
their creed: "There IS no logic", they hee-haw. "Our
theory says so. No pathways, no pattern, no plan."

Of *course* there's a plan and a pattern. Just not the usual Newtonian
fixed trajectories that you are used to. You'll have to get over that.


Unfortunately one look at Life is all it takes
for anyone with brains to see that they are wrong.

Actually, John, in science there is only one way to determine if a
theory is wrong, and that is if it is logically inconsistent (see the
*scientific* meaning of "logical" above) or if it disagrees with
experimental observation. Also please note that an observation that is
*unexplained* is not necessarily one that is in conflict with a
theoretical observation. Our self-awareness, for example, is
unexplained, but this is not in conflict with any claims of quantum
mechanics, because quantum mechanics makes no prediction about self-
awareness.

You have a habit of saying that "anyone with brains can see that it is
wrong," when in fact you don't pay any attention to the mechanisms by
which science discovers that theories are wrong.