https://www.popsci.com/buckyball-magic-molecule/#

We only recently (20 years ago) discovered a perfect structure C-60. 60 Carbon Atoms, arraigned with 12 pentagons and 30 hexagons.
It was first discovered by a chemist, Harry Kroto, at Rice University who theorized it by making a pentagon and taping hexagons to it's five sides. He kept putting them together until he had a perfect, 32 sided shape, with 60 nodes. He dropped the paper and tape ball he made and it bounced. He figured mathematicians had to know about this perfect structure.
When he told his math professors about it they told him he came up with a truncated icosahedron.
It became known to chemists as the buckminsterfullerene molecule—and to nearly everybody else as the standard soccer ball.
He figured it had to exist in nature, in carbon form.
So he searched for it for 2 years and finally found it.
The strongest structure in the world. Stronger than a diamond.
It can be fired at a steel plate at 15,000 mph and bounce back, undamaged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Kroto#Discovery_of_buckminsterfullerene

Buckminsterfullerene is the largest object observed to exhibit wave–particle duality; theoretically every object exhibits this behavior.

It is one of the most common electron acceptors used in donor/acceptor based solar cells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminsterfullerene#Applications

It turns out they not only exist in nature, they're a naturally occurring molecule found in the interstellar medium, the diffuse bands of material between stars.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/chemistry/buckyballs-found-in-space/

Turns out the strongest form in nature, can also be scaled up for human habitation, with the least amount of material and cost.

https://youtu.be/1Bn2o-xyS6M



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2021 10:06AM by schrodingerscat.

>It turns out they not only exist in nature, they're the most common molecule found in the interstellar medium, the diffuse bands of material between stars.

Not even close to being true.

The most common molecule in the interstellar medium is
hydrogen

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~richard/ASTRO620/QM_chap3.pdf

https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~burrows/classes/204/ISM.pdf

In fact, it only makes up ~10^-4 of the carbon present

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580815/
(see the appendices B and C and Table 2)

Not only is the claim not close to being true, the cosmos magazine article linked doesn't even make that claim. SC presumably just pulled it out of his interstellar medium.

how much OPie earns ~


from its constant click-bait threds ~


it is as follows ~


~\||||||/~
~(0o)
~/'o'\~


Tier 1 ~ $5.50 per 1000 unique views

Tier 2 ~ $1.30 per 1000 unique views

Tier 3 ~ $0.25 per 1000 unique views

Tier 4 ~ $0.12 per 1000 unique views

~\||||||/~
~(0o)
~/'o'\~


the more exmos click ~



the more scrode licking scat earns ~



better than street bums ~



~\||||||/~
~(0o)
~/'o'\~

I misspoke.
I corrected it.
The point remains.

It's the "misspoke" gambit.

But don't deduct his Enthusiasm points!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2021 12:41PM by elderolddog.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I misspoke.
> I corrected it.
> The point remains.


Please, sir, could you explain what the 'point' is that remains?

Is it that no one here appears to believe in magic, and if that's the case, we're to explain the "Magic Molecule"?

Is the point to come up with an alternative (to magic) regarding the existence of the Buckyballs?

Is the point to establish how you're on the right side of history yet again?

Could the point be that you like shiny baubles and want to share them with all of us here who are united in Recovering from Mormonism? A sort of, "Hey, everyone, look what I found to share with you!"

which is cool, in that a stated purpose of this board is to help 'recovering Mormons to transition their lives to a normal life'.

And with no definition of what a 'normal life' is, game on!

We could discuss what a normal life is, but it's possible no such thing exists. But I don't think it's normal to have 23% of the posts on the 1st-page listing. As of my taking a screenshot, 13 out of 55 were your posts. The next closest, Dave the Atheist, Cold-Dodger, and Anybody, tied at 3.

But because I am just an 'internet rando' nothing I have to say is of value. Does that mean that you consider yourself to be an 'internet' ... what? 'Right Side of History' guy? The 'shot-caller'?


<phew> Thanks, I feel better now!

This time it was "I mis-spoke." A week or two ago it was "I was high when I wrote that."

Take your pick....and consider which is more likely.

Honestly, and I mean no offence to Bucky the Scatball (other than jesting about his moniker).....but based on the volume of posting, then a break, then more volume, combined with the content and analysis he provides, and the defense of it, it kind of seems like he suffers from manic depression.

I mean no harm. Really. mMy deceased sister had it, a deseased best friend of mine had it, several others I know...its no fun. But it does make me wonder, if nothing else because of the grandiose nature of it all, and the breaks followed by the frenzy of posts.

The “Magic Molecule” says “Ask Again Later”.

hahaha. Who has the most normal life?

Game on! Let the competition begin.

I got the mail yesterday. Thats 1 normal point.

For some reason I think of the movie Spaceballs when read the opening thread subject with Buckyballs.

I'm calling them Spaceballs from now on if that is cool?

Buckyballs is what you get from riding a bronc in a rodeo. Buckyballs in space is when you get thrown off.

Magic?

it is magical ~


am harb ab diamonds right now ~


plz don stop OPie ~

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Magic?

Yes. From the article I linked to in Popular Science,

"Meanwhile, Smalley sat down at his computer and tried to generate a model structure for a 60-atom ball of carbon. After hours of work, he got nowhere. Frustrated, he began cutting regular hexagons out of legal paper, one inch on a side, and tried to make a sphere out of them. No dice. As he reached for an after-midnight beer, he remembered Kroto saying that he had once built a geodesic dome for his children, and that it might have contained regular pentagons as well as hexagons. So Smalley cut out a pentagon and began arranging hexagons around it, adding more pentagons and hexagons, taping the flimsy paper shapes together as he worked, and finally, halfway through, saw he had something.

"My heart leaped," Smalley recalls. "Unless I had counted wrong, the structure could close to form a sphere with the magic number of vertices: sixty."

"To a chemist it's like Christmas," exults Richard Smalley of Rice University in Houston, one of the key players in the buckyball game. To explain, he harkens back to the discovery of benzene in 1825. The benzene molecule is a relatively simple six-carbon ring, yet it's the parent of countless compounds, from aspirin to nasal decongestants to paints, dyes, and plastics—all made by working with that six-carbon ring. Now chemists hope to perform the same magic with this family of new carbon molecules that is at least 10 times bigger than benzene, with, therefore, even greater possibilities."

I guess this is a little like your concept of God, which is idiosyncratic to say the least.


---------------
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of magic:

1a) the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

1b) magic rites or incantations

2a) an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

2b) something that seems to cast a spell

3) the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand entertained with acts of jugglery and magic


--------------------
In which of those senses are you using the word "magic?"

If pressed, do you think Smalley would say, "yes, buckeyballs really are magic?" If so, according to which of those definitions?

I get where The Cat is coming from...

He's a Big Picture guy. He's sharing with us, offering us the opportunity to join with him in the Big Picture, on the Right Side of History, and not remain pitiful 'internet randos'. <shudder>

It's a difficult task! I'm the first to admit it! It may even be an impossible task, but some selfless person who wants nothing more than fame and adulation is willing to try to do it and we should be grateful.

hahaha what the heck is an internet rando old dog?

First time I have heard that before.

Random person on the internet that uses old dog in his moniker?

Adam, I asked The Cat a question and he said that he doesn't respond to 'internet randos' ...

It hurt...

You'd have to ask Richard Smalley, but I imagine he used the term "magic" to describe the number 60 because,

It is a composite number, with divisors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60, making it a highly composite number.[1] Because it is the sum of its unitary divisors (excluding itself), it is a unitary perfect number,[2] and it is an abundant number with an abundance of 48. Being ten times a perfect number, it is a semiperfect number.

It is the smallest number divisible by the numbers 1 to 6: there is no smaller number divisible by the numbers 1 to 5. It is the smallest number with exactly 12 divisors. It is one of seven integers that have more divisors than any number less than twice itself (sequence A072938 in the OEIS), one of six that are also lowest common multiple of a consecutive set of integers from 1, and one of six that are divisors of every highly composite number higher than itself.(sequence A106037 in the OEIS)

It is the sum of a pair of twin primes (29 + 31) and the sum of four consecutive primes (11 + 13 + 17 + 19). It is adjacent to two primes (59 and 61). It is the smallest number that is the sum of two odd primes in six ways.[3]

The smallest non-solvable group (A5) has order 60.

The icosidodecahedron has 60 edges, all equivalent.

In geometry, it is the number of seconds in a minute, and the number of minutes in a degree. In normal space, the three interior angles of an equilateral triangle each measure 60 degrees, adding up to 180 degrees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_(number)#In_mathematics

I repeat my question. According to which definition are buckeyballs "magic?"

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I repeat my question. According to which
> definition are buckeyballs "magic?"


I repeat my answer, "You'd have to ask Richard Smalley, but I imagine he used the term "magic" to describe the number 60 because....(long list of reasons.)"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2021 02:24PM by schrodingerscat.

I'm not asking Smalley anything. You used the word several times and I am asking you why you are using it.

In which dictionary sense are buckeyballs magic? Or are you beyond dictionaries?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not asking Smalley anything. You used the
> word several times and I am asking you why you are
> using it.
>
> In which dictionary sense are buckeyballs magic?
> Or are you beyond dictionaries?


magic: Noun -the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious forces.

The mysterious formation of perfect 60 Atom, 32 sided molecules, with 12 pentagons and 20 hexagons, stronger than diamonds seems like it meets that definition, since the force that creates them is still a mystery.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------
> magic: Noun -the power of apparently influencing
> the course of events by using mysterious forces.

You know what I thought when I saw this definition? I says to myself, "Self, I wonder why S-cat has not told us where he got that definition. Is he hiding something?"

So I tracked it down. You are citing Coub, "a video sharing website available on both iOS and Android." Your definition is by some random poster named "frh" on July 23, 2015 and not an actual lexicographer.

Here's the definition:

https://coub.com/view/gynq6

And here's a photo of frh:

https://coub-anubis-a.akamaized.net/coub_storage/channel/cw_avatar/cb6f0ed4023/1ba1189fe6ff1a8e7338f/profile_pic_big_2x_1609185747_12vli6l_1484600606_1ss6iv6_2944133846.jpg

She's an attractive young woman, to be sure, with a great smile. But do you really think she's more reliable than Merriam-Webster?

I googled 'magic definition' and that's the first result.

But it comes from the Oxford Lexico Dictionary.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/magic

But the Oxford definition and yours differ.

The dictionary states: The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious OR SUPERNATURAL forces.

You state: the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious forces.

We are left with two possible interpretations:

1) You took your definition from a teenage girl, or

2) You took yours from the Oxford dictionary but removed "or supernatural" to make it appear that your usage is not metaphysical.

I'm not sure either is very encouraging.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2021 10:17PM by Lot's Wife.

WTF?
Gimme a GD break.

Not always, but often actions (or inactions) have consequences.

You aver that you're here to exchange dialog with others on a similar route, i.e., out of mormonism, to wherever our journies take us.

But in your discussions, you don't want to be held to the standard, the line, the rest of us seem to have agreed on.

There is now speculation that it's not a question of you won't, but that you can't.

Any light you want to shed might be useful...

I have no idea what you're yammering on about.

We know.

But this isn't a Chinese reeducation camp so you don't have to confess publicly.

It doesn't take magic to explain fullerenes in space anyway.
It just takes...chemistry.

2 explanations

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191113170322.htm

http://spaceref.com/astronomy/how-buckyballs-form-in-interstellar-space.html

So the original title is misleading.

If only the OP were not so subject to being misled. I know it's out of enthusiasm, so he does get points for that, though they are self-assigned.

Much as it pains me, I have to partially agree with SC here, at least on the number 60 being "magic", if not the buckyball molecule itself.

In mathematics, a term like magic is used in a sense indicating a system having one or more unusual or unexpected properties. A well-known example is the magic square, a square grid filled with consecutive integers, usually starting at 1, where all the rows, columns and diagonals all add up to the same total.

It is pretty surprising that this is even possible, and creating a 3x3 magic square is a good puzzle that should keep one busy for a few hours unless you cheat and google it. (a 2x2 magic square is not possible. Figure out why)

In that sense, 60 is a pretty remarkable number, for the reasons SC listed. The ancient Babylonians (time of Hammurabi, 1850 BCE, not the johnny-come-latelys who temporarily relocated the Jews) adopted 12 and 60 (5x12) as the basis for their written mathematics. We have retained their practice when dealing with astronomy and time - 60 seconds, 60 minutes, 360 degrees, 12 hours in a day and 12 hours in a night, 12 signs of the zodiac.

So yes, the Babylonians were pretty smitten with 60, and had decent reason for being so. Does that justify the adjective magical? The point could be argued.

BTW, I was impressed that SC cited the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), even if it was just stumbled across. For a certain flavor of math geek, it is an amazing forest to wander through.

The definition SC gave/cited for a semiperfect number is not the definition I am familiar with. A semiperfect number is one that is the sum of some of its proper divisors. 60 is semiperfect in a number of ways: 30+20+10, 30+20+6+4, 30+20+5+3+2, 30+20+4+3+2+1, and there are a few other combinations.

FYI, a perfect number (perfect, like magic, used to indicate an unusual property) is one where *all* of the proper divisors add up to the original number. 6=1+2+3. 28=1+2+4+7+14. There are dozens of others, though they are few and far between in the list of integers. It is unknown where there are an infinite number of perfect numbers. [edit to add: 6 was the number of days of creation, 28 almost the number of days in a lunar month. 7 (6 days of creation and a day of rest) is one quarter of the next perfect number (28), I suspect the ritual lengths of a 7 day week and 28(ish) day month were derived from those first two "perfect" numbers.]


As for the buckyball molecule, calling it magical is far more of a stretch than I would be willing to make, The benzene ring (6 carbon atoms) is kind of magical in that there are additional electron positions open on the carbon atoms in the ring, so all manner of other molecules can be hung off the vertices of a benzene ring. I suspect there are millions of variations of organic chemicals that contain one or more benzene rings.

I'm not sure, but I think all the electron slots are filled in a buckyball, so there is no way to hang stuff off of the vertices. That makes it chemically more or less inert. Nothing wrong with that, but not very "magical".

Carbon itself, however, is pretty magical. You can pull off a layer of graphite one atom thick with cellophane tape and a pencil. That's amazing. The entire subfield of organic chemistry is based on carbon, and it arguably contains more compounds than all the rest of chemistry of all other elements combined.

Since pure elemental carbon is black, organic chemistry is sometimes referred to as "black magic chemistry". For those who have suffered through an organic chem course, there are at least two levels of meaning to that name. Much of organic chem feels like rabbits being pulled out of hats. Flammable, smelly rabbits at that. Even the watered down organic chem in med/nursing schools convinced a lot of people they would be happier in another field.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2021 04:40PM by Brother Of Jerry.

I'm inclined to take the position that typing ‘Buckyballs!’ was the OP’s only real motivation.

But that's because that's why I'd do it. You know, cuz we're both Native Americans...

Are you sure it's not because of a Sebastian Stan fascination?

BOJ, are you saying that something "pretty remarkable" is magic?

Because I don't think you need magic to explain mathematical relationships.

I think the word magical is used in those contexts just because it has a bit more punch than just saying "surprising"

Albrecht Dürer included a magic square in his engraving "Melancholia". I guess he had a dim view of mathematics!
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/DuerersMagicSquare.html

I know how you were using the word. I'm just pointing out at in an S-Cat thread, getting loose with the facts is a dangerous thing. Soon one ends up making up his own definitions.

Love Durer. He's a magical artist.

Or the first result you get when you Google "Magic".

Some might think that your intentionally manipulating a dictionary definition to fit your misuse of a word borders on dishonesty. Others may reckon that if you ask for someone to give you a break, it is churlish then to continue the argument.

But what do mere mortals know about you, every bit the genius of a Bill Maher or a Sam Harris?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some might think that your intentionally
> manipulating a dictionary definition to fit your
> misuse of a word borders on dishonesty.
Some here are too dense to get that I used the word chosen by the author of the article who chose that word to use in the title of the article, to describe the magic molecule, the word their Popular Science editor decided was the best choice of word to use to describe it and the word the scientist who discovered the molecule used to characterize the number 60.
Others
> may reckon that if you ask for someone to give you
> a break, it is churlish then to continue the
> argument.
Others are fucking idiots.
>
> But what do mere mortals know about you, every bit
> the genius of a Bill Maher or a Sam Harris?

Paragraph breaks can be magical!

Not all of us have your skill set when it comes to comprehension.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Some here are too dense to get that I used the
> word chosen by the author of the article who chose
> that word to use in the title of the article, to
> describe the magic molecule, the word their
> Popular Science editor decided was the best choice
> of word to use to describe it and the word the
> scientist who discovered the molecule used to
> characterize the number 60.

Mind reading now too?

Okay, S-Cat. Let me get the formalities out of the way first.

You asked that I give you a break, which I did. You then restarted the argument. That makes you "a fucking idiot."

And you are a liar. You document almost everything you write except for when you bowdlerize quotations, when you mislead everyone by altering the words of authorities to make them appear to support your position. But that is "bullshit." In fact, "you are so full of shit your eyes are brown." I have some trepidation stating that baldly, however, since I suspect your digestive system has grown so efficient at processing "bullshit" that your eyes probably remain as starry as ever.

Now, having established my credentials as an intellectual who wields scatological words with equal aplomb, let's shift gears and look at what you wrote. You claim that you are fine using the word an editor used in a title. What seems to have eluded your starry eyes is the fact that editors want attention--like you, they want clicks--so they use extravagant words like "magic" in the expectation that their readers can differentiate between metaphor and reality. It's the same as when Einstein or some other genius (note the exclusion of jokers like Bill Maher and Sam Harris) says "God." In both cases, though, the literal, the plodding man of marginal intellect, can't handle metaphor and nuance and "digs" the hyperbole more than accuracy.

That's you, big boy. A foggy-minded zealot who thinks that bombast and "fuck" and "shit" may distract people from the fact that you lied. You falsified a published definition in order to make your perfervid flights of fancy seem more real than they are.

Well, I have a dictionary too; it's prestigious; it's got a university name in it. And when I use it to look up the word "S-Cat," it defines the term as "a fucking idiot liar who's full of shit." I am not going to name that dictionary; you'll have to take my word for it; but judging from the language it utilizes, I sometimes think you wrote it.

Carry on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2021 02:35PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, S-Cat. Let me get the formalities out of
> the way first.
>
Fuck off psycho stalker.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2021 02:13PM by schrodingerscat.

I love a man who is both brilliant and eloquent. Gives me goose bumps, it does.

And by the way, your name is Scat. You can't constantly curse at everyone else and then demand that they respect your infantile sensitivities.

"Mom, Gladys just blew out my candle."

Do you ever have an original thought or is all you can do is parrot others? Just curious.

I only believe in the magic of a young girls heart.

Once again, I appear to be the only one diggin' what schrodinger has to say . . .

jay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once again, I appear to be the only one diggin'
> what schrodinger has to say . . .

Thanks Jay.
Glad somebody here is diggin' it. Out of 42 comments, 41 of them have been negative or personal attacks, just for sharing something that fascinates me and demonstrates the underlying mathematical order, harmony and symmetry of the laws of nature.

>> "just for sharing something that fascinates me"

Fascinates you? Could it be that others aren't as fascinated in what fascinates you? And could it be that constantly posting what fascinates you gets to be a drag for others?

We're all capable of reading up on what fascinates us without you're expectation that we're all facsinated by what you read up on.

You don't seem to be reading the crowd very well and your constant persistence seems to always end in arguments and insults.....yet you persist with a vengence.

I guess some crave attention, positive or negative, anyway they can get it.

I'm sure it's tough being you....but not as tough as being us when you're being you.

And rather than tell me to F off or other dismisal, here's an example of what might be a self reflective reply.....

>> Fascinates you? Could it be that others aren't as fascinated in what fascinates you? And could it be that constantly posting what fascinates you gets to be a drag for others?

Yes, I see how it could get tiresome.

>> We're all capable of reading up on what fascinates us without you're expectation that we're all facsinated by what you read up on.

I know, I should probably let you do your own research based on your interests as I do mine and leave it at that.

>> You don't seem to be reading the crowd very well and your constant persistence seems to always end in arguments and insults.....yet you persist with a vengence.

Sometimes I just get too caught up it. Maybe I should learn to relax more.

>> I guess some crave attention, positive or negative, anyway they can get it.

Maybe, I just can't seem to put it down no matter what the reactions are.

>> I'm sure it's tough being you....but not as tough as being us when you're being you.

I get that. Maybe I should back off a bit, maybe a lot.

Buckyballs? I'm sure that's a DISEASE!!!