chemistry books are almost entirely rules of thumb and simplistic models that help summarize huge amounts of experimental trends but have lots of exceptions.
that being said, the underlying physical ideas can be made precise and the rules of thumb summarize phenomenological details, but usually the systems are so enormously complicated that (even for a multielectron atom) you have to resort to simplifying assumptions to even simulate things from first principles. experimental verification of chemistry is always very important

Well there are levels to this like anything else. You build a better understanding the higher you go in chemistry coursework.
But perhaps there's not really a point in arguing against basic versions of chemistry if they are doing what you need them to, like making sense of ball and stick models.

name one chemical experiment that proves the models to be inaccurate

All representative knowledge is heuristic. Science, maps, language, etc.

>>16550112
>is not an accurate representation of reality,
What is not accurate?
Explain yourself nigger.
What the fucl is not accurate about that representation?
The original idea of atoms was that of point particles with some mass. That was not accurate, Theres been a bunch of other models like the plum pudding and bohrs model.
All of them were incresingly good, but still with mistakes. What the fuck do you even have a problem with the current model?

>>16550130

You are not even a midwit, you are a dumbass. You went full 'you cannot know nuffin bra' on someone that knows more about a subject than yourself.

What is 'accurate' supposed to mean to you? Scientific models always approximate the truth and reality to a certain degree but the model is as accurate insofar as to what it tries to explain and represented a huge advancement in human thought. You are a total idiot.

>>16550191
>>16550229
faggots still can't answer op

>>16550240
>Questions: Do my ramlings have merit?
>Answer: No, you are a retard.
>You: You didn't answer the question!!

Kys

>>16550112
You didn't learn about how atomic orbitals replaced the bohr model in school chemistry? Are you underage?

>>16550244
kys retard

I don't know what you're all getting excited about, you don't ever have arguments purely for entertainment value?
I never claimed not to be an uneducated retard, quite the opposite, yet you respond with frustration, betraying your inability to construct a thoughtful answer because you have no idea what the reality is and I've shattered your fragile little mind.
anger is an ugly emotion and shows that it's you who's retarded.

>>16550112
>I explained to him my belief that atomic structure as typically described in chemistry books is not an accurate representation of reality, but rather a heuristic device that allows us to more easily visualise chemical reactions and predict their outcomes.
where is the argument? they should teach you this at school.

>>16550252
You don't merit a thoughtful answer by going full Dunning Kruger and being condescending towards a person vastly more educated than yourself and anger is an emotion that is as valid as any other emotion. Incredible that you are still being condescending here. Goes to show you that you have learned enough. Try being a bit more humble please?

>>16550252
Why don't you answer my question >>16550245
instead of whining like a moron?

>>16550252
>you don't ever have arguments purely for entertainment value?
so being a retard?
>anger is an ugly emotion and shows that it's you who's retarded.
you are just showing being retarded.

guys, I'm messing, just dunno why some people are being hostile.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson wouldn't behave this way, calling people idiotic retards, nose cocked to the heavens, that's why he's doing coke off a hooker's tits while cruising in his Lambo while you're copy-pasting meta AI in your mums' basements.

>>16550119
yeah, that's what I'm saying. simplistic models are useful but they're just models.
>>16550122
yeah, there's no point but some people will hold on to these models as though they're a realistic description of nature just because their day job doesn't require them to explore any further.
>>16550128
not the point, as I said it has useful applications and that's why it's taught, but that's like saying a map of the London underground looks anything like the London underground, or a physiology cross section looks like a real animal - it's more useful if it's inaccurate.
>>16550130
yes
>is accurate
>became increasingly good
proves more simplistic are less accurate, what's your point?
>>16550229
> Scientific models always approximate the truth
that's what I'm saying, dafty
>>16550244
not me - kys
>>16550245
not the point. all models are inaccurate because it's not useful for them to be accurate. that doesn't mean they are reflective of reality.
>>16550264
haha you're angry
>>16550282
>so being a retard?
guess so

>>16550376
>all models are inaccurate
Where's the inaccuracy? Demonstrate it and get your nobel prize.

>>16550383
I think you're winding me up.
bet you think pigs have gay little tea parties because you saw an episode of Peppa Pig

>>16550392
What? You have no evidence that it's inaccurate and just think it is because of some retarded philosophy?

>>16550394
electron probability clouds are a more accurate description of the nature of "electrons" than viewing them as descrete particles.
this wouldn't be useful to delve into in the Bohr model because it achieves it's purpose in a simplified way.

>>16550402
I asked you why you claimed that the atomic orbital "model" i.e. modern quantum mechanics is inaccurate, not for inaccuracies with the bohr model.

>>16550406
show me where I claimed that.
I'm talking about simplistic models like the Bohr model, but it applies to modern quantum mechanics too, yeah. scientific ideas are simplistic by their intent. It's ok, some people are just incapable of abstract though, it's a small part of life, don't worry about it.

>>16550408
thought*

>>16550408
>show me where I claimed that.
You just did:
>but it applies to modern quantum mechanics too, yeah.
And also in >>16550376:
>all models are inaccurate

Demonstrate the inaccuracy of QM and get your nobel prize, or fuck off.

>>16550112
>i'm . . . just a deluded dropout arguing about stuff I don't understand
Mods, please.

>>16550414
you're stupid, you.

>>16550419
So you're just a crackpot schizo, got it.

>>16550416
>oh, please, mummy, close the thread, the bad man is disagreeing with me and my brain hurts, waaaaah!
that's you

>>16550422
how is that relevant? try to communicate your disagreements more effectively instead of resorting to ad-homs, dummy

>>16550430
How is what relevant? Your schizophrenia and crackpottery?

>>16550436
yes. glad you're able to read. maybe you could apply that skill to learning about the subject at hand.

>>16550437
Oh, so you admit that you are a schizo crackpot? Why are your handlers letting you post on the internet?

>>16550443
they probably find arguing with me about it is too much hassle.
bet you can relate.

>I was just pretending to be retarded

that's it?
very weak arguments, gang.
disappointed in you.

>>16550376
>simplistic models are useful but they're just models.
you fail to understand that ALL of science is "just models"
models are how we describe phenomena we observer. models work within domains of applicability; if you exceed that domain, your model won't be very good. don't shit on something because it's "just a model/theory".

things like lewis structures and oxidation states, when compared to better models, capture some features of the more fundamental models, but they are also essentially cartoons. it's like how you can immediately recognize a cartoon of a person captures important visual features of a person, but scribbles on paper really bear little resemblance to actual people

>>16550803
>ALL of science is "just models"
no shit. I'm not saying atomic structure is a special case, I just used it as an example when speaking to a chemistry teacher.

>>16552467
Are you going to give a single example of how that model is innacurate or not?
Innacurate=Does not describe actual observations. Diverges from observations of reality
Give one example of such divergency.

>>16552476
You don't get to make this claim because most of the models are informed not by theory, but by observation. The entire periodic table is unknown on a theoretical basis.
They can't tell you why for shells
>oogabooga spherical harmonics
Why these ones and not others?
Why proton counts inform chemical behavior
>oogabagunga but we have stated their behavior!
Why geometry changes these things
>oogaboogabungabunga, actually no clue

There is no theory tying any of this together. And it gets worse at nano-scale if atomic properties are actually bulk characteristics that alter when counts drop.

>>16552597
>spherical harmonics
Exclusion principle, dumb pseud. Electrons cant exist in the same state. Thats the theory. Now tell me why this is wrong *crickets*

>>16552735
There are many ways to shape orbitals that can fit exclusion requirements. And it completely ignores the fact that shells do have more than 2 electrons in them, but we conveniently subdivide orbitals in there.

>>16552836
>And it completely ignores the fact that shells do have more than 2 electrons in them,
Why is this a problem for you? Spherical harmonics are not "one per shell".
>>16552836
>There are many ways to shape orbitals
The actual theory says its spherical harmonics