Thommo wrote:False dichotomy. There can also be a boundary and a continuum, or no boundary and no continuum.

For a clear example consider the function f from the Reals into the Reals, f: f(x) = {x2 for x > 0, -x2 for x <=0}

This function has a boundary where the behaviour changes at x=0 and is continuous throughout. I.e. there is both a continuum and a boundary. Such behaviour is ubiquitous and can take many forms.

Equations only exist in minds. Try giving a real physical example.

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, it doesn't. A salt is an ionic compound. By applying a current to molten salts you de-ionise the ions. It's no longer an ionic compound afterwards, meaning it's no longer a salt. The "salt" property disappeared.

Words have meaning, plobs.

Again, an arbitrary schism of ionised/deionised. The electrons dont vanish, they move to different atoms.

Which is arbitrary how exactly?

The same as what i explained earlier. You define an arbitrary boundary that splits the world into two categories (for example tall vs short, or ionised vs deionised). Now when you remove this arbitrary boundary, and look just at the physical facts (which is what i always expect physicalists to do), we can see that there is continuum or spectrum of lengths and a continuum/spectrum in the number of electrons and protons that atoms have.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, it doesn't. A salt is an ionic compound. By applying a current to molten salts you de-ionise the ions. It's no longer an ionic compound afterwards, meaning it's no longer a salt. The "salt" property disappeared.

Words have meaning, plobs.

Again, an arbitrary schism of ionised/deionised. The electrons dont vanish, they move to different atoms.

Which is arbitrary how exactly?

The same as what i explained earlier. You define an arbitrary boundary that splits the world into two categories (for example tall vs short, or ionised vs deionised).

You're just repeating your unsubstantiated claim that this devision is arbitrary. HOW are the (very specific) criteria for something being an ionic compound arbitrary in any way whatsoever?

Now when you remove this arbitrary boundary, and look just at the physical facts (which is what i always expect physicalists to do), we can see that there is continuum or spectrum of lengths and a continuum/spectrum in the number of electrons and protons that atoms have

Like I said, there is no continuum or spectrum for ionic compounds. Either something is an ionic compound or it isn't, there are no gradations. You are talking complete bullshit, plobs.

pl0bs wrote:

Thommo wrote:False dichotomy. There can also be a boundary and a continuum, or no boundary and no continuum.

For a clear example consider the function f from the Reals into the Reals, f: f(x) = {x2 for x > 0, -x2 for x <=0}

This function has a boundary where the behaviour changes at x=0 and is continuous throughout. I.e. there is both a continuum and a boundary. Such behaviour is ubiquitous and can take many forms.

Equations only exist in minds. Try giving a real physical example.

You really have a problem sorting out stuff that is in your head and the stuff it refers to. You should do a little reading. Branch out.

debunk wrote:You're just repeating your unsubstantiated claim that this devision is arbitrary. HOW are the (very specific) criteria for something being an ionic compound arbitrary in any way whatsoever?

You propose the world is divided into 2 categories: ionised and non-ionised.

However, the physical facts clearly demonstrate there is a continuum in the number of electrons and protons, as opposed to there just being 2 different situations.

Like I said, there is no continuum or spectrum for ionic compounds. Either something is an ionic compound or it isn't, there are no gradations. You are talking complete bullshit, plobs.

I apologise for the following debunk debunk.

Lets say an ionised atom has 30 electrons and 20 protons.
There are also atoms that have 30 electrons and 21 protons. And 22 protons. And 23 protons. Etc.

Where did you get the idea that there is no continuum?

SpeedOfSound wrote:You really have a problem sorting out stuff that is in your head and the stuff it refers to. You should do a little reading. Branch out.

Or you could just give a real physical example. Of course, when that happens, it will show im right.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:You're just repeating your unsubstantiated claim that this devision is arbitrary. HOW are the (very specific) criteria for something being an ionic compound arbitrary in any way whatsoever?

You propose the world is divided into 2 categories: ionised and non-ionised.

No, I propose that either atoms have a net charge or they do not. Do you disagree?

However, the physical facts clearly demonstrate there is a continuum in the number of electrons and protons, as opposed to there just being 2 different situations.

Again, either the number of protons and electrons is the same, in which case there is no net charge, or the number is not equal, in which case there's a net charge. How big the difference in the number of protons and electrons is does not matter. Something doesn't become more ionic if the net charge is larger. Something is not more ionic if the net charge is positive compared to a negative charge.

You are spouting bullshit, plobs.

Like I said, there is no continuum or spectrum for ionic compounds. Either something is an ionic compound or it isn't, there are no gradations. You are talking complete bullshit, plobs.

I apologise for the following debunk debunk.

Lets say an ionised atom has 30 electrons and 20 protons.
There are also atoms that have 30 electrons and 21 protons. And 22 protons. And 23 protons. Etc.

Where did you get the idea that there is no continuum?

Apologise my ass, you are talking complete rubbish. Something is not "more ionic" when the number of protons and electrons differs more. It's not a continuum. Charge is a continuum, whether or not an atom is ionised isn't.

pl0bs wrote:
Lets say an ionised atom has 30 electrons and 20 protons.

That would be one fucking scary ion!

aka unobtanium.

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You really have a problem sorting out stuff that is in your head and the stuff it refers to. You should do a little reading. Branch out.

Or you could just give a real physical example. Of course, when that happens, it will show im right.

You have consistently denied any of the boundaries that would allow for anything to actually be real.

debunk wrote:No, I propose that either atoms have a net charge or they do not. Do you disagree?

Of course i disagree, since the physical facts do also. Even the distinction between positive and negative charge is arbitrary, since it comes in degrees and ultimately is just signifying the directions electrons will travel in, which also comes in many more variations that just "away from the atom" and "towards the atom".

Again, either the number of protons and electrons is the same, in which case there is no net charge, or the number is not equal, in which case there's a net charge. How big the difference in the number of protons and electrons is does not matter. Something doesn't become more ionic if the net charge is larger. Something is not more ionic if the net charge is positive compared to a negative charge.

You say there are only 2 possible situations: the ratio of electrons/protons being the same or not the same. So do you really think that an atom with 30 electrons/20 protons, is identical to an atom of 30 electrons/25 protons? No, there is a difference, even though in both cases the ratio of electrons/protons is not the same. Your claim that there are only 2 possible situations, is thereby falsified.

Apologise my ass, you are talking complete rubbish. Something is not "more ionic" when the number of protons and electrons differs more. It's not a continuum. Charge is a continuum, whether or not an atom is ionised isn't.

Again, sorry for the debunk debunk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_potential

SpeedOfSound wrote:You have consistently denied any of the boundaries that would allow for anything to actually be real.

Not me, physics.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:No, I propose that either atoms have a net charge or they do not. Do you disagree?

Of course i disagree, since the physical facts do also.

You disagree that either the number of protons and electrons in an atom is equal or it is not equal.

Pray tell me, what's the third option?

Even the distinction between positive and negative charge is arbitrary, since it comes in degrees and ultimately is just signifying the directions electrons will travel in, which also comes in many more variations that just "away from the atom" and "towards the atom".

Oh look, more irrelevant bullshit. It doesn't matter which we call positive and which we call negative, it's completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that there is a net charge.

Again, either the number of protons and electrons is the same, in which case there is no net charge, or the number is not equal, in which case there's a net charge. How big the difference in the number of protons and electrons is does not matter. Something doesn't become more ionic if the net charge is larger. Something is not more ionic if the net charge is positive compared to a negative charge.

You say there are only 2 possible situations: the ratio of electrons/protons being the same or not the same. So do you really think that an atom with 30 electrons/20 protons, is identical to an atom of 30 electrons/25 protons? No, there is a difference, even though in both cases the ratio of electrons/protons is not the same. Your claim that there are only 2 possible situations, is thereby falsified.

Stop misrepresenting my position or I'll have to report you. Argue against what I say instead of some retarded straw man of your own making. You have not falsified my claim in any way, care to try again?

Apologise my ass, you are talking complete rubbish. Something is not "more ionic" when the number of protons and electrons differs more. It's not a continuum. Charge is a continuum, whether or not an atom is ionised isn't.

Again, sorry for the debunk debunk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization_potential

What debunk? That article isn't even relevant to the discussion ffs.


Please stop posting such retarded tangents, it's insulting.

debunk wrote:You disagree that either the number of protons and electrons in an atom is equal or it is not equal.

I already gave an example of two situations that are different, yet they both do not have an equal number of electrons/protons. I can also give you many different examples of the electron/proton ratio being equal. We can have 10/10 electrons/protons. 20/20. 30/30, etc. This powerful debunk falsifies your whole story of there just being 2 different situations (equal and not equal), debunk.

pl0bs wrote:

debunk wrote:You disagree that either the number of protons and electrons in an atom is equal or it is not equal.

I already gave an example of two situations that are different, yet they both do not have an equal number of electrons/protons. This powerful debunk falsifies your whole story of there just being 2 different situations (equal and not equal), debunk.

No, plobs, for you to show me wrong in claiming that there are two states, equal and not equal, you'll have to show that there's a third option. So far you have not done so, which isn't strange, since such an option simply does not exist.

pl0bs wrote:I can also give you many different examples of the electron/proton ratio being equal. We can have 10/10 electrons/protons. 20/20. 30/30, etc.

All examples of the number of protons and electrons being equal. What on earth do you think you're showing here?

debunk wrote:No, plobs, for you to show me wrong in claiming that there are two states, equal and not equal, you'll have to show that there's a third option. So far you have not done so, which isn't strange, since such an option simply does not exist.

Put yourself in the shoes of a physicalist. Get rid of the arbitrary labels that humans invented and look at the actual physical facts. Do you see an "equal"-property floating around atoms? Do you see a "not-equal" property floating around atoms? I certainly dont, and physics doesnt either. Instead, physics finds that an atom has a number of protons and electrons.

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You have consistently denied any of the boundaries that would allow for anything to actually be real.

Not me, physics.

you heard of Dennett?

pl0bs - just as an experiment, & in the interests of science, go & smack your head against a wall & see if it hurts. If it does, please explain why. After all, it's just atoms & shit. There is no 'solid' property, obviously, and no conscious experience of pain, 'cos actually that's just atoms & shit too. Unless of course the property of solidity emerges out of something, as might consciousness ...

SpeedOfSound wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:You have consistently denied any of the boundaries that would allow for anything to actually be real.

Not me, physics.

you heard of Dennett?

Ive debunked him.