2100: "Models of the Atom"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6276
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Jorpho » Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:05 pm UTC

Image
Alt Text: J.J. Thompson won a Nobel Prize for his work in electricity in gases, but was unfairly passed over for his "An atom is plum pudding, and plum pudding is MADE of atoms! Duuuuude." theory.

Verily, if you accelerate two atoms towards each other at high speeds, they will interact to produce more math as well as anti-math and exotic forms of line graphs.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Flumble » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:35 pm UTC

The 2014-2019 model:
atom.png
atom.png (3.88 KiB) Viewed 6161 times


I find it hard to imagine going back to "small ball", when the quantum model gives us much prettier pictures.

richP
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby richP » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:51 pm UTC

Wouldn't the 538 model include error bars?

rmbdot
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:56 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby rmbdot » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:29 am UTC

You forgot the 1981 Venus Flytrap street gang model.

rmbdot
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:56 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby rmbdot » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:38 am UTC

The 538 Model:
Electrons replaced with"electoraltrons"
Three common states of matter no longer solid, liquid & gas. Now changed to "red", "blue", & "swing".

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:44 am UTC

Whatever the fourth (e)state is called, dibs on the fifth being a Rose-Enstein Condensate…

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby da Doctah » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:32 am UTC

That Bohr model also made a lot of us think the solar system was just a huge fluorine atom. (Until NdeGT kicked out one of our electrons and turned it into oxygen.)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:46 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:That Bohr model also made a lot of us think the solar system was just a huge fluorine atom. (Until NdeGT kicked out one of our electrons and turned it into oxygen.)


Nah, it was always an O- ion.

dtilque
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:53 am UTC
Location: Nogero

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby dtilque » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:03 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:That Bohr model also made a lot of us think the solar system was just a huge fluorine atom. (Until NdeGT kicked out one of our electrons and turned it into oxygen.)


Pretty sure it was Mike Brown that kicked out the electron. But don't worry, he's trying to get it back.
“This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”
-- Albert Einstein, 12 September 1920

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6276
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Jorpho » Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:27 am UTC

rmbdot wrote:The 538 Model:
Electrons replaced with"electoraltrons"
Three common states of matter no longer solid, liquid & gas. Now changed to "red", "blue", & "swing".
I am suddenly reminded of the old joke about Administratium. Couldn't quite remember what it was, exactly, but it actually has its own Wiki page.

Spoiled for longtext.
Spoiler:
The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by investigators at a major U.S. research university. The element, tentatively named administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons, which gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons.

Since it has no electrons, administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second.

Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each reorganization.

Research at other laboratories indicates that administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and universities. It can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.

Scientists point out that administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.

rabidmuskrat
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:37 am UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby rabidmuskrat » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:22 pm UTC

The year usage on these really through me off when I compared it to how we learned things in school. I looked at the Chadwick model (1932) and thought, "wait, that's how they taught it when I was in high school." Took a minute for it to click that it's because the model lasted all the way from 1932 to 2008.

speising
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby speising » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:35 pm UTC

but that's not true. i'm sure i learned the quantum model in school in the 80's.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:52 pm UTC

speising wrote:i'm sure i learned the quantum model in school in the 80's.

Although the more sure you are about when you learnt about it, the less certain you can be about where you were at the time.

:P

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6276
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Jorpho » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:44 pm UTC

rabidmuskrat wrote:Took a minute for it to click that it's because the model lasted all the way from 1932 to 2008.
The funky shapes of the s, p, and d orbitals were indeed all in textbooks well before 2008. I think the year of "2008" is thrown in there simply because that's when fivethirtyeight.com rose to prominence.

As for why they don't teach them in high school, I suppose that's because trying to get across the complexity of the model might be a little too much information at that level.

I'm not sure exactly what timeframe you could attach to the adoption of that model. It was clearly after Bohr.

richP
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:28 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby richP » Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:39 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:...

I'm not sure exactly what timeframe you could attach to the adoption of that model. It was clearly after Bohr.

ISTR covering the quantum model in high school chemistry, ca. 1992.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5394
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:02 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
speising wrote:i'm sure i learned the quantum model in school in the 80's.

Although the more sure you are about when you learnt about it, the less certain you can be about where you were at the time.

No, you're confusing two different things: he can't know both where he learnt it and how quickly he learned it; but also, he can't know both when the lecture was and how energetic the lecture was. He can easily know both when and where he learned it exactly, but then he'd have no idea how quick or energetic the lesson was.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Archgeek
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 6:00 am UTC
Location: Central US
Contact:

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Archgeek » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:17 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:
rabidmuskrat wrote:Took a minute for it to click that it's because the model lasted all the way from 1932 to 2008.
The funky shapes of the s, p, and d orbitals were indeed all in textbooks well before 2008. I think the year of "2008" is thrown in there simply because that's when fivethirtyeight.com rose to prominence.

As for why they don't teach them in high school, I suppose that's because trying to get across the complexity of the model might be a little too much information at that level.

'Can vouch for the quantum model being in use in highschools in the early oughts. They used orbitals to help kids grasp valence and thus get a feel for natural oxidation states in preparation for diving into stoichiometry (cheat sheet note cards got used for the polyatomic ions).
"That big tube down the side was officially called a "systems tunnel", which is aerospace contractor speak for "big tube down the side."

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1388
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby freezeblade » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:22 pm UTC

I have the same experience as Archgeek with quantum model being taught in High School chemistry class, circa 2002 (California public school).
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1264
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:39 pm UTC

In my experience, it's normal enough to be taught the Bohr model of the atom in grade school and middle school and then a quantum mechanical model of the atom in high school. (As an aside, I typically see folks continue to refer to the Bohr model of the atom + neutrons as the Bohr model rather than as a separate Chadwick model.) I remember being quite annoyed in high school that I'd been lied to for so long about atoms being structured like planetary systems. The problem, of course, is that what that I didn't have the background (mostly significantly in calculus) to have ever received a rigorous treatment of the Bohr model and as such didn't realize what a remarkable advance it was and what a logical stepping stone it was for an electron cloud model.

speising
Posts: 2350
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby speising » Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:37 pm UTC

the Bohr model is something like the Newtonian physics of chemistry. it's still useful for a number of applications, like counting the number of electrons in the outer shell. (if i remember my chemistry right...)

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Flumble » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:27 am UTC

I'm not sure I was taught the cloudy model of the atom in secondary* education (probably not since I have a model of an atom with discrete orbiting electrons from the last grade or something), though we did cover the double-slit experiment (which is quantum stuff but doesn't require redefining the structure of an atom) and my friends and I learned about the quantum model outside of school anyway.


speising wrote:it's still useful for a number of applications, like counting the number of electrons in the outer shell. (if i remember my chemistry right...)

...for some elements. They get the shells wrong though (with respect to the quantum model of shells). Electron configurations (even without considering ionization, isotopes or bonds) are a mess and the one who came up with this universe should get fired. Like, what we consider elementary particles right now are quite elegant in a vacuum, but once you glue a bunch together in an atom it gives rise to far too much complexity.


Since I'm not well-versed in QM: what happens if you take an electron out of an atom (does it matter which atom? if so, O) with, say, spin up and fire another electron with spin down at it? Does it go into a different orbital? Does it flip its spin at some energy cost? Does it get rejected?

*non-specialized learning until you're 18/19. I guess that's comparable to higher GCSEs?
Last edited by Flumble on Wed Jan 23, 2019 2:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jan 23, 2019 3:51 am UTC

Not sure about Secondary level of education (O-Levels), but I recall the 'fuzzily somwehere in varioys lobes' atomic orbital models (for s, p, d & f, etc) in Further Education (A-Levels), while I was still in a Physics-inclined Chemistry course (I then shifted over to a Biology-flavoured variation for scheduling reasons, and had to now start understanding beta-pleated sheets, etc).

Can't recall it popping up in Higher level (University Degree) Physics. We didn't do much stuff at atomic level (down to subatomic quanta, yes, and things sized from oil-drop experiments on up, yes, but skipped over atom-scale stuff - no doubt the Chemistry degree course would have pursued things in that gap), though a quick scan of the textbooks I have (from about three decades ago) do have such versions of the atomic model in them, in a chapter or two that may have never even been taught from.

glb
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby glb » Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:17 pm UTC

You might be mistaken about the date of the Bohr model. It seems to be referenced in the text of 2 Enoch, which is much older than 1913.

2 Enoch Chapters 26-28 (http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/enochs2.htm#Ch26):

And I summoned the very lowest ... and said: Let ... come forth hard, and [it] came forth hard from the invisible ... And [it] came forth, hard, heavy, and very red. ... and [it] came ... forth, very great and very dark, bearing the creation of all lower things and ... [it] became the foundation for the lower things, and below the darkness there is nothing else. ... And I said: Be thick ... and [so] I made firm the waters, that is to say the bottomless, and I made foundation of light around the water, and created seven circles from inside, and imaged (the water) like crystal wet and dry, that is to say like glass, (and) the circumcession of the waters and the other elements, and I showed each one of them its road, and the seven stars each one of them in its heaven, that they go thus ... And [so] I made firm the heavenly circle, and (made) that the lower water which is under heaven collect itself together, into one whole, and that the chaos become dry, and [so] ... out of the waves I created rock hard and big, and from the rock I piled up the dry, and the dry I called earth, and the midst of the earth I called abyss, that is to say the bottomless, I collected the [waters] in one place and bound it together with a yoke. ... Thus I made fast the firmament.

2 Enoch dates to no later than the 10th century CE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Enoch#Date).

Remember, truth is stranger than fiction ... :P

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby markfiend » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:09 pm UTC

glb wrote:...It seems to be referenced in the text of 2 Enoch...

Pareidolia is a hell of a drug :mrgreen:
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

glb
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby glb » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:09 pm UTC

markfiend wrote:Pareidolia is a hell of a drug :mrgreen:


Ahh, but that is a cop-out response. If you want to deny that the text is speaking of atoms, then you have to supply an alternative explanation for what it is describing.

What ever it is describing has to:
1. "come from the invisible" (aka "the waters", aka "the bottomless") (think material from immaterial here -- mater from energy)
2. "bear"/"be a foundation" for all "the lower things"
3. consist of "seven concentric circles of light" (the Bohr model had seven orbits -- one for each row of the periodic table)
4. be "piled up" so as to form the earth

What is it besides the atom that you think fits the text?

DavidSh
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby DavidSh » Thu Jan 24, 2019 10:12 pm UTC

It's fairly obviously describing the creation of the universe, under the Ptolemaic model, with the Earth at the center, surrounded by the crystalline spheres containing the seven planets (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), then sphere of the fixed stars.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Flumble » Fri Jan 25, 2019 1:55 pm UTC

DavidSh wrote:It's fairly obviously describing the creation of the universe, under the Ptolemaic model, with the Earth at the center, surrounded by the crystalline spheres containing the seven planets (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), then sphere of the fixed stars.

Boo! Boo! Get this guy off the stage!


Also it's clearly talking about the castle that Elsa made while singing.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby markfiend » Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:55 pm UTC

glb wrote:
markfiend wrote:Pareidolia is a hell of a drug :mrgreen:


Ahh, but that is a cop-out response. If you want to deny that the text is speaking of atoms, then you have to supply an alternative explanation for what it is describing.

No, you are evading the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that the text is speaking of atoms then it's up to you to prove it. A few vague parallels just don't cut it.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

glb
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby glb » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:07 pm UTC

DavidSh wrote:It's fairly obviously describing the creation of the universe, under the Ptolemaic model, with the Earth at the center, surrounded by the crystalline spheres containing the seven planets (Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), then sphere of the fixed stars.


But how do you "pile up" the ptolemaic model of the solar system to form the earth?

glb
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:09 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby glb » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:18 pm UTC

markfiend wrote:No, you are evading the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that the text is speaking of atoms then it's up to you to prove it. A few vague parallels just don't cut it.


But the evidence is solid -- it is in written texts that can be physically dated. And the evidence is extraordinary -- what is the probability that someone from 1000 to 2000 years ago would imagine that "light" (em fields in the modern vernacular) would be the "foundation" of anything, let alone "everything" ("all the lower things" in the text). The typical person of the time was more likely to suppose that the world was supported by a giant sea turtle!

Anyway, if you don't want to believe it, that is your prerogative. I'm just sharing it because I think it is a fascinating possibility concerning when the nature of the atom might have been known. There are a lot of mysteries about our existence that we still don't understand and this is just another one of them.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:35 am UTC

glb wrote:
markfiend wrote:No, you are evading the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim that the text is speaking of atoms then it's up to you to prove it. A few vague parallels just don't cut it.


But the evidence is solid -- it is in written texts that can be physically dated. And the evidence is extraordinary -- what is the probability that someone from 1000 to 2000 years ago would imagine that "light" (em fields in the modern vernacular) would be the "foundation" of anything, let alone "everything" ("all the lower things" in the text). The typical person of the time was more likely to suppose that the world was supported by a giant sea turtle!

Anyway, if you don't want to believe it, that is your prerogative. I'm just sharing it because I think it is a fascinating possibility concerning when the nature of the atom might have been known. There are a lot of mysteries about our existence that we still don't understand and this is just another one of them.


If it were talking about atoms, it would be talking about atoms with a maximum of one electron per shell "I showed each one of them its road, and the seven stars each one of them in its heaven, that they go thus".

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:56 pm UTC

Part of the problem is that, whatever it's describing, it's not describing it very well. The vagueness, the repetition, and the multiple words for the same thing don't help. Shorter sentences, some headings, and a few bullet points wouldn't go amiss; nor would a diagram or two:

2 Enoch should have wrote:I made foundation of light around the water, and created seven circles from inside (seest figure 1)

In fairness to the original author, its passage from ancient Greek via Old Bulgarian probably did no favours to its clarity.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Archgeek
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 6:00 am UTC
Location: Central US
Contact:

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby Archgeek » Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:23 pm UTC

I find what really weakens the argument for atomic structure being described is this bit here:
2 Enoch wrote:And I summoned the very lowest ... and said: Let ... come forth hard, and [it] came forth hard from the invisible ... And [it] came forth, hard, heavy, and very red. ... and [it] came ... forth, very great and very dark, bearing the creation of all lower things and ... [it] became the foundation for the lower things, and below the darkness there is nothing else.


That kinda sounds like the proton and neutron, but only really in light of commonly-seen diagrams. No sub-atomic particle actually has a colouration (gluon-moderated color interactions between quarks not withstanding, as we only call the force that), and photons low-energy enough to be considered red only really come from electrons getting less excited. Thus, the choice of a red proton makes the description seem a bit of a naive fabrication.

Of course, it could instead be describing Earth during the Hadean eon, which would've looked pretty darn red from all the molten rock a-glowing on the surface. 'Kinda ignores Sol's contributions, though. I blame Ptolemy.
"That big tube down the side was officially called a "systems tunnel", which is aerospace contractor speak for "big tube down the side."

xtifr
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby xtifr » Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:05 pm UTC

glb wrote:what is the probability that someone from 1000 to 2000 years ago would imagine that "light" (em fields in the modern vernacular) would be the "foundation" of anything, let alone "everything" ("all the lower things" in the text).


Given the huge volume of random poetry and philosophical musings that existed in the pre-scientific world--extremely high, I would say. Especially given how important vision is to our species. It's easy to imagine (as a pre-scientific musing) that light, which is what allows us to see things, is therefore what gives things form. The whole thing smacks of "if a tree falls in the forest...".

(Also "light" is not "em fields in the modern vernacular". Light is photons, which are only part of the em fields.)
"[T]he author has followed the usual practice of contemporary books on graph theory, namely to use words that are similar but not identical to the terms used in other books on graph theory."
-- Donald Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol I, 3rd ed.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 2100: "Models of the Atom"

Postby markfiend » Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:39 pm UTC

glb wrote:2 Enoch Chapters 26-28 (http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/enochs2.htm#Ch26):

And I summoned the very lowest ... and said: Let ... come forth hard, and [it] came forth hard from the invisible ... And [it] came forth, hard, heavy, and very red. ... and [it] came ... forth, very great and very dark, bearing the creation of all lower things and ... [it] became the foundation for the lower things, and below the darkness there is nothing else. ... And I said: Be thick ... and [so] I made firm the waters, that is to say the bottomless, and I made foundation of light around the water, and created seven circles from inside, and imaged (the water) like crystal wet and dry, that is to say like glass, (and) the circumcession of the waters and the other elements, and I showed each one of them its road, and the seven stars each one of them in its heaven, that they go thus ... And [so] I made firm the heavenly circle, and (made) that the lower water which is under heaven collect itself together, into one whole, and that the chaos become dry, and [so] ... out of the waves I created rock hard and big, and from the rock I piled up the dry, and the dry I called earth, and the midst of the earth I called abyss, that is to say the bottomless, I collected the [waters] in one place and bound it together with a yoke. ... Thus I made fast the firmament.

It doesn't help when you quote-mine your own sources.
(Spoilered to avoid length)
Spoiler:
Chapter 26, XXVI

1 And I summoned the very lowest a second time, and said: Let Archas come forth hard, and he came forth hard from the invisible (spiritual).

2 And Archas came forth, hard, heavy, and very red.

3 And I said: Be opened, Archas, and let there be born from you, and he came undone, an age came forth, very great and very dark, bearing the creation of all lower things, and I saw that (it was) good and said to him:

4 Go thence down below, and make yourself firm, and be a foundation for the lower things, and it happened and he went down and fixed himself, and became the foundation for the lower things, and below the darkness there is nothing else.

Chapter 27, XXVII

1 And I commanded that there should be taken from light and darkness, and I said: Be thick, and it became thus, and I spread it out with the light, and it became water, and I spread it out over the darkness, below the light, and then I made firm the waters, that is to say the bottomless, and I made foundation of light around the water, and created seven circles from inside, and imaged (the water) like crystal wet and dry, that is to say like glass, (and) the circumcession of the waters and the other elements, and I showed each one of them its road, and the seven stars each one of them in its heaven, that they go thus, and I saw that it was good.

2 And I separated between light and between darkness, that is to say in the midst of the water hither and thither, and I said to the light, that it should be the day, and to the darkness, that it should be the night, and there was evening and there was morning the first day.

Chapter 28, XXVIII

1 And then I made firm the heavenly circle, and (made) that the lower water which is under heaven collect itself together, into one whole, and that the chaos become dry, and it became so.

2 Out of the waves I created rock hard and big, and from the rock I piled up the dry, and the dry I called earth, and the midst of the earth I called abyss, that is to say the bottomless, I collected the sea in one place and bound it together with a yoke.

3 And I said to the sea: Behold I give you (your) eternal limits, and you shalt not break loose from your component parts.

4 Thus I made fast the firmament. This day I called me the first-created [Sunday].

When you don't cut out the bits that disagree with your thesis, it's a lot less convincing.
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests