Chemistry and physics for lower school kids.

I find there are a few maps to the elementary table. one of which is that the orbitals that accompany each element follows a dungeons and dragons style progression, i promise you!

Then, there is the weights - i am sure there is a system where the weights of the elements, which surely get heavier with each passing element, follow a 'formula' for finding the weight of the element.

Soon, there will only be a need to learn the name of the element and the periodic number, i suppose.

 

So, for the orbitals in the electron cloud, it would go that hydrogen has one s orbital, helium has two s orbitals, lithium has two s orbitals and one p orbital and then the next element has three s orbitals and two p orbitals. it carries on like this until the s orbitals are maxed out at eighteen, and so forth.

 

Today i stumbled upon a paper showing the problems in science education, and wondered if we could give a good grounding to it at lower school level so that students would not 'suffer' later in life?

From what i can tell, i can help with these problems!

The goals should be practical, or, relate to simple goals and examples the kids will understand. the students should be asked simple questions and then have the teacher evaluate the answers and show new methods for soling them. for example, if it comes to working out pressure, then the teacher should use a student pushing two magnets together - something they can easily understand. the teachers should spend time at creches in the holidays where they find out what the kids seem to always understand. getting simple things into the classroom would help show how simplified examples of those 'experiments' could be simulated.

Also,

 

Acids, neutrals and bases are indicators or signs of what sort of element you have. if it is a mixture that has hydrogen in it, it is acidic. if it has no hydrogen in it, it might be neutral or base. a base element has no mixture in it, may be gas, liquid or solid, and it will form a solid if frozen.

I would go so far as to say that any gas mixed with another gas is acidic, or any gas mixed with a liquid. the rest are base.

 

Actually i am not so sure of this, could someone say something?

 

The atomic model to learn is about electrons, neutrons and protons. protons are a stabilizing force for the atom, as they counter balance the electrons. if you really want to know why the atom is so large, that is because it has more to, so, for each electron an atom has, it will be bigger and take up more space.

It is the proton that keeps the electron from going somewhere else, as we know in science, is that 'opposites attract.' this means, if you were to have a magnet that is south, and a magnet that is north, they will attract, but, why?

They attract because the magnets are seeking balance. this is common too in electromagnetism. this is because they seek stability, or, neutrality, because they giving off energy that is 'unstable.' think of breathing into your lungs; if the whole body is stable with old air, then it will cease to live, yes?

Now, this is because the body needs to be unstable to keep energy inside of it. all that stuff you learned about homeostasis is about the body wanting to become more unstable with chemicals from food and air, leading to activity. think of a fire that is going out, this is someone dying. the flames need to feed on something stable like wood, so, we could say the force of attraction is down to 'negative things' - things that destroy, trying to take everything down with them. this is like someone on the titanic trying to get onto a life raft, and dragging people with them as it tries to 'exist,' yes?

 

That sound pretty close to correct.

Do you mean a "basic" element, in terms of acid/base, or do you just mean a pure element (not a compound)? You are confusing me, and I used to teach chemistry.

Mixed or combined? And the answer to that is no. Mixed gases are not necessarily acidic. Gases mixed in liquids aren't acidic as a rule. Hydrogen gas mixed in water is actually alkaline (basic). Carbon dioxide gas mixed in water is acidic. There is no definite rule.

Please stop. You are confusing people.

What is your chemistry/physics background?

 

There must be a definite rule, and i am trying to find it.

Do you care to help?

 

That also reminds me of molecules - the opposites attract rule.

If something is found to have more orbitals than the other, as we know, negative spin draws things in. think of a kettle; the kettle will get hot, and the water will become steam, yes? this is because water as a solid is ice - fridge, lower temperature - and in the kettle the water turns to gas. this is because the effects on the water are different, as, they both carry a charge, and water is a 'conductor.' it will carry the charge through it and into it.

So, if you have some lithium or something with less orbitals, then it will melt or dry quicker, as it is not as dense as other things. the denser the element - the higher the 'periodic table number' - the more energy it takes to affect it.

Now, what is the difference between steam and ice? well, for a like thing, they both revert back to water at room temperature, on the roof or in the ice rack, yes?

So, as water slows down, it hardens, as there is no activity for it. this is because the water is not full of new electrons! electrons make things like electricity by being unstable, and, in their instability, they cause havoc! havoc i say! they will actually have a 'force' behind them called electromagnetism and then get earthed in parts of your television, until it is switched off.

 

There is a rule, I don't know what it is, but it has to do with how the gas reacts with water. It's not an easy thing--it's probably some kind of physical chemistry rule, as I can't recall being taught a rule.

 

Well, it would have to be absorbed by the water. this reminds me of another topic i was posting on where the question was why water gels at all with other things? i cannot remember what i said then, but;

If the gas was to 'cool' it would bond with the water as the liquids bond. cooling any gas will make it liquid, won't it?

Anyways, the way i see it, the less kelvin or 'warm' it is the more 'liquid' it is. all gases might become liquid because they cease to have the 'activity' required for them to stay in such a 'absorbing' state, yes?

 

Well, no. Lead takes less heat to melt than iron, despite the fact that lead (At. #82, melting point 327 C) has a higher periodic table number than does iron (At. # 26, melting point 1535 C).

Well, for metals, higher atomic number elements tend to be more reactive than lower atomic number elements (if in the same column). Lithium is less reactive than Sodium. However, as you go across a row, higher atomic number element means that it's less reactive. Iron is less reactive than potassium.

http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/meltingpoint.html

I guess. They are all the same composition (ice, water and steam).

Nothing to do with "new electrons." Temperature is a measurement of the average speed of the molecules. As temperature goes down, speed of the molecules goes down.

Not sure about your havoc stuff.

Again, please stop spouting off this garbage. You have a limited knowledge, and you're just confusing people.

 

Well, gel is a specific term. It refers to a nonfluid colloidal network or polymer network that is expanded throughout its whole volume by a fluid

So far as we know cooling any gas will make it liquid. Even helium will eventually become liquid. The gas doesn't really "bond" with the water, usually. Carbon dioxide does, and it forms H2CO3.

All gases do become liquid due to lower temperature (measured in kelvin). Not sure what you mean by absorbing state.

My guess from reading your posts is that you are not a native English speaker, and I hope that the reasons for what you are saying is due to that language barrier.

 

Unfortunately i am speaking from unverified 'research' my 'friends' i did it with. you have proven it to be only half thought out, of course.

But, electrons bring forth heat, when they move, and, as they force other electrons out of the 'areas,' they will generate the same energy as is seen on the face of the sun, being like fusion of sorts, where, two like particles will create friction, like bringing two south pole magnets together will create 'energy,' yes?

As the atomic number goes up, the heavier the element, yes? they must have had some logical base to list them with?

 

I must apologize, i am sorry i know nothing about melting points, just took a wild stab in the dark.

 

Well, these things are shaped in 'nature.' that is how they naturally find each other and 'bond.' they start off as nature and then they can be molded and used. they can grow from stones into boulders, or from seeds into wood. this is natural.

So, it is either dirt collecting and being compressed into what it is with similar things, or it strengthens with the inclusion of water or something, like a plant or a person.

But, then there are things like bones, maybe they will grow because of fuels being treated with solidifying things?

 

Really? Please study chemistry before you expound on baseless theories.

In terms of your electron theories, I have no idea what you are talking about. Forcing electrons out of other areas is how electricity moves. It has nothing to do with the energy on the face of the sun.

For the most part, as atomic number goes up, the heavier the element. There are a few exceptions. As you should know, the atomic number is the number of protons of an element. The atomic weight (or mass) is the number of protons and neutrons an element has. Most of the time, the higher atomic number is the higher atomic mass, but there are exceptions due to differing numbers of neutrons in atoms of the same elements (isotopes). This is basic chemistry--taught at around age 14 in the U.S.

http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/mass.html

- - - Updated - - -

It's common knowledge and easily looked up. Please use google before posting other baseless theories.

 

Stones don't grow into boulders. For the most part, boulders are broken off from huge pieces of rock that are created by geological processes (either mountain building from plates colliding, solidified magma, or sediments that get compressed/cemented).

Bones grow because of cellular processes.

 

It doesn't sound like you are disagreeing with me anymore. except about protons - the more protons, the more electrons?

 

My main problem with you is that you are expounding on subjects that you don't have any background with.

The more protons=the more electrons, yes.

 

It is best to seek a progressive education based on common sense than 'science slang.' i say this because i could not learn maths in school, but now know how to simplify formulas for those that can, and, have a very different way of seeing science to the 'old ways.'

Piety was never big with me, unless it is to resurrect something that is worthy or comely.

 

So in other words you are ignorant of science and proud of it, and would rather make things up than look things up. You don't want to be hindered by facts, after all.

 

When we stop trying to make things easier, or even try new things, what will happen?

 

My problem is that you make things up. Your whole mple. thing about "So, if you have some lithium or something with less orbitals, then it will melt or dry quicker, as it is not as dense as other things. the denser the element - the higher the 'periodic table number' - the more energy it takes to affect it." is just an example. Why make things up when they are documented? No offense, but you don't know enough about chemistry to "try new things" in chemistry. If you don't know the basics and how to look things up, you just spin in circles.

 

This is where energy changes forms. this is like when we have groups of atoms that change forms. basically, the orbitals will be forced apart or closer together to bond with the rest of the thing of like structure or make up - they will bond with things that are the 'same.' this is because the electron orbitals will seek out the anti particle of the same thing.

If you have a couple of bricks, then they can be stacked together quite easily. you cannot make them bond except with cement. now imagine on the outside of the bricks there are the 'ends of bonds,' that need to be connected with other ends of bonds - the ends will stay away from each other until the orbitals say otherwise. this is because the end has been 'made,' and only through some energy transfers would it change. to transfer energy to other bricks would mean that they would be connected, but the only way we know how to connect bricks is through putting cement between them. this is a drying mixture where the orbitals of the bricks allow the wetness inside of it, and then it slowly dries as all the water gets absorbed. then, the bricks will 'bond.'

Lots of things are like this, but instead of having cement, they have hot gases or other liquids and even smelted solids between them.

When energy changes forms, it is like the cement where it will be wet, then dry. this is because of bonds being made by electrons and working out the details of the end result. think of a teacher that is getting all the marks together, some will be right and some will be wrong, but the end result is your 'marks.'