Re: The electron shell model is in challenge

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 08/09/04 

Date: 9 Aug 2004 07:39:21 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cf7fd0$4ig$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cevjvv$iqi$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>>you never di dit you just hand waved never something specific.
> >>
> >>I told you where you can read up further. You chose to ignore that.
> >>Again: one can lead a horse to water, but one can't make it drink...
> >
> > ---------------
> > bring it here specifically dont send me to libraries
>
> What do you want??? Not all information can be found on the web.
> Most scientific results are published in journals which are *not*
> freely available on the web. If you want to have specific information,
> you *have* to go to the library!
-----------------
if you had it you could bring it in its bottom lines
but nothing will do
once no such experment was done
all your explanations and all your calculations that are teorethic
are not convincing since
untill a specifically desighned experment for the above peopous
is done-
you can repeat it 100 times it proves nothing
take for instance your calculation that you did
yet it does not deal for instance the specific features of the
instruments that are doping the experiment
now dont tell me that you are an expert for those
experiments tools!!!
so iow playing chess with youself !
---------------
>
>
> enough
> > to distiguish between Au 79 and Au 80
>
> I presented a calculation which proves exactly that.
>
>
> > (that is just a preemptive question
> > before the question wether such an experiment was premeditated
> > od spacially desighned!!)
>
> Irrelevant.
-------------
you say irrelevant 100 times and i say relevant 100 times
so its leads no where.
-------------
>
>
> > there is no whatsoever Au 80 or higher!!
>
> *How* shall I show that, if literature on the experiments doesn't count
> as specific evidence?????
because that literature describes experiment A
and i am asking for experiment B
-----------------------
>
>
> [snip ramblings]
>
>
>
>
> >>>it is general hand waiving and *demagogism*
> >>
> >>You have a problem if I call you an idiot, but you are allowed
> >>to insult hundreds of thousands of hard-working scientists? Hypocrite.
> >
---------------
just tell me from when disagreement is an insult?!!!!
------------------------
>
>
> >>>it is not good enough to say steep rize
> >>>it has to be folowing quantitatively
> >>
> >>It is. Schroedinger equation.
> >
> > -------------
> > far from covering all the aspects of all the periodic table
>
> It covers spectra, multipole moments, transition amplitudes, bond length
> etc. for a plethora of atoms, ions and molecules. It covers about
> 100,000 more things than *your* model.
--------------
we do not examine now my model there is nothing in the title that
mentiones my model
2 qm does not cover all the specra of heavier elements
do you deny it??
you have nothing but excuses for that fact
----------------
>
>
> > you demand too much from a single general equation
>
> Well, it fulfilled every demand so far.
--------------
not even the dammand to explain all spactraa of heavy elements
-----------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> It is not my "private belief", it is a fact. Live with it.
now you became the Godes of facts in physics
so who am i do resist it??
--------------
>
>
>
> >>Conclusion: if there were Au 80+ ions in the bunch additional to the
> >>Au 79+ ions, one would long have seen them.
> >>
> >>
> >>Similar arguments can be made for the detection of the ions which fly
> >>out *after* the collision. There, too, distinguishing between Au 79+
> >>and Au 80+ would be no problem at all - it would be totally obvious at
> >>first sight if an Au 80+ ion had appeared. One does not have to look
> >>for it specifically - it would jump at your eyes if it were there.
> >>---------------
> >
> > thats a very nice calculation
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> > but as you know it is not convincing unless backed up by
> > a specially desighned experinets
> > actually not just one but a series of them to make sure
> > generally scince demand even that it will be done in several
> > different laboratories (the famous reprduction demand)
>
> Utter complete bullshitting nonsense.
who is talking here bul***
wher is your existing tool analysis - the tools that
do the experiments?
dont they have their error margines? you never dealt with it
because you are not an experimental expert for those
soecific tools.
--------------
>
> I proved above that if there had been Au 80+ in the experiment,
you wone the chess game that you played with youself
noce scontific work....
---------------

 it
> would have been *seen*, even if one had not been looking for it
> specifically. There is no specially designed experiment needed anymore.
> The existing experiment already disprove your ideas. Live with it.
> --------------
aq dead by arival argument
it is wrong even phylosophy of scince wise.
extrapolations are not proves not even speculations
---------------------

----------------
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >>>no one missing *no one exxesive in the spectral data*
> >>
> >>Electrons can't be missing or be excessive in the spectral data.
> >>You are not making sense.
> >
> > --------------
> > in ther heavy atoms you cant explain it to the last detail!
>
> How do you know? Have you looked at all the relevant scientific
> literature?
---------------
i know that qm didnt go much further in full covrge beyond
something around the iron element
with the excuse of too little computer power
that you youself used above
----------------
>
>
>
> [snip ramblings]
>
>
>
> >>But the crucial point is that *no prediction of QM for spectra so
> >>far has ever shown to be false*. Despite tens of thousands of
> >>predictions which were made!
----------------
it seems that qm is good enough for light elements
but not all along for heavy ones
thats exactly my claim heer.
---------------
> >
> > ----------
> > but still not covering all known spectra!!
>
> So what? Your model does not cover even one single spectrum so far.
>-------------
common my model is a crackpot model
*your model* is the dominant one so the demands
are not the same!!!(:-
)
-----------
>
>
> >>If yes, you essentially say that we have to abandon astronomy. If no,
> >>please explain why that is not an unsupported extrapolation.
> >
> > -------------
> > there is some difference betwen astronomy and microcosm
> > the main one is that object of astronomy are directly
> > observed .......................!
>
> You failed to get my point, I see.
>
> I restore the stuff you snipped for context; what I wrote was the
> following:
> It is in your view also an unsupported extrapolation to claim that
> the same law of gravity we observe on the earth holds also in other
> solar systems? That the same laws of light emission we observe on the
> earth hold also for the sun and other stars?
-------------
you failed to see my point:
in astronomy we see at least part of the objects directly
so we can alow some extrapolations
it is not the case in microcosm
----------------
>
>
>
> >>>see postulate no 7 of mine it is relevant here as well)
> >>
> >>Your postulate 7 shows nicely that you don't understand science.
> >
> > -------------
> > it showes you dont understand scince!
>
> ROTFL!!!
ROTFL !!! that rotfl of yours impresesno body
it is a zero scintific argument.
-----------
>
>
>
> >>>the rasdiastion is harmonic
> >>
> >>Which radiation? And what do you mean by calling radiation "harmonic"?
>
> Hello?
all radiation is harmonic
-------------
>
>
>
 
> > -------------
> > i know a bit beter than you the connection between harmonic motion of
> > buildings and earth quakes
>
> Yet another argument which went right above your head, I see.
>
> Non-harmonic motion can lead to harmonic waves. Do you dispute that?
-----------yess that is basics
but still the cause might be nonharmonic
but the influenced object must move harmonically
mind you
a building as well as an atom of an electron
has its natural frequency!
it is only if the outer pwer has some similar motion
that you get resonance
it must not be with the same frequenct
it can be say 3 times slower but must be syncronized
in order that it will drive ower 'building' to resonance
yet there is no radiation without *resonance*!
and no resonance without harmonic motion.
----------
>
> BTW, the light emitted by atoms does *not* consist of harmonic
> waves, i.e. it is not monochromatic, there is not only one single
> frequency.
-----------
now you are the supwerficial one
it is not just one electrons that works there
*it is many of them#
so each one can make another frequency!!!!
and you get a mix of frequencyes
that is exactly the difficulty in predicting
heavy elemets radiation you get a mwess of frequencies
---------------
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>Please present evidence for the existence of these orbitals.
> >>>
> >>>----------------
> >>>there are 3 kinds of radiation
> >>>1 light visible
> >>>2 x ray
> >>>3 gama rays
> >>
> >>Huh? Ever heard of radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, and
> >>ultraviolet radiation?
> >
> > yess they as well belong to th eelectrons vibrations
>
> Unsupported assertion.
--------------
apparently the electron radiation gives a much wider range of
radiation than say the nuclear particles.
mircowave belong as well to electrons radiation
----------
>
> You *do* know that these waves all have *totally* different frequencies,
> don't you?
>
>
> >>>why just 3 kinds???
> >>
> >>Nonsensical question, since there are many more than those 3 kinds.
> >
> > but 3 mqin groups
>
> Nonsense. The things you mentioned above are by no means "main groups".
> In reality, the radiation emitted by most atoms is in the micro wave
> and infrared region!
see above
the groups must not be of the same size of cases!!
--------
>
>
> >>>no you dragg me to my model which is not exactly in my interest now
> >>>anyway
> >>>acording to my model
> >>>1 is for the electrons
> >>>2 for the mediating orbitals
> >>>3 is for the nuclear orbitals
> >>
> >>Unsupported assertion.
take it or leave it
---------
> >
> > ----------
> > take it or leave it
>
> Support it or drop it.
not neccessay need to suport it just noww
it can be kept in memory and done by me or others later!!
no need to be such a quick looser!
one can be 'along runner' i guess i am.....
-----------
>
>
>
> >
> > ---------------
> > not all laong the periodic table and not all posible known cases
>
> Answer the question. Why is QM able to do all of that correctly?
> Just dumb luck? Fraud?
-------------
again it good for light elements
so no need to jump to conclusions and extarpolations
see postulate no 7 of Y.Porat
----------------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>Why is the fact that people did not saw the need to calculate every
> >>single detail of every single element "cheating"???
> >
> > -------------
> > because they are 'thrue beleivers'not sicpicious enough.
>
> What on earth has that to do with "cheating"?
---------
some of them n\migh tbe cheting
others like you migh tbe suckers.
-----------
>
>
>
> >>And may I remind you that your model also has no "full solution"?
> >>E.g. you did not bother to explain the spectra of the elements.
> >
> > never sayed so
>
> Well, then why do you keep asking of QM things which you never
> bothered to do yourself? Hypocrite. 

--
i told you i am acrackpot so where is the hypocritism?(:-)
-----------
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> >>>i casn explain why quicksilver id fluid with my primitive model
> >>>see in my book it does not have enough bondable electrrons
> >>
> >>Why does this make it a liquid and not a gas? And what about all the
> >>other elements with only a few "bondable electrons"? Why are they not
> >>also all liquids?
> > 
> > -----------
> > se in my book section 5.4
> > 'a table wiht one leg or a table with two legs'...
> 
> According to your index, that section should begin on page 108. But 
> pages 108-110 contain nothing like that - instead, there is only a
> discussion of alloys.
> 
> So try again: where does your book address the questions I posed above?
> 
> -------------
see the section called:
a table with one leg or a table wit 3 legs
(it should be 3 legs not on the same line)
see my Hg sceme including the little cube
that is suposed to present the 3d sparead of the 
edge orbitals
ans see the unprecedentd stability explanation
(from the point view of a structural engineer
a 'fomula mathematician' would neverr get to it!!
it could be done only by a crackpot structural engineer.
---------------
> > it is much more talgible and comprehansive than ever before.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> >>The Schroedinger equation can predict *all* spectra, if one invests
> >>enough time and computer power. All the spectra predicted so far,
> >>with the time and computer power available, agreed with the 
> >>observations. How do you explain that? Luck? Fraud?
> > 
> > --------------
> > so haeplp you God
> > it will never be don!!!
> > and if this is my contribition to scince
> > to prevent unneccesaay resourses that are dead by arival
> > that will be enohg for a life time contribution!!
> > of a single person
> 
> I notice that you *again* ignored my question. Address it. How do
> you explain the success of QM?
just remenber my claim
qm will never give a ful explanationand calculations for heavy 
elements as long as it is based on jumping to conclusions!!
-------------
> 
> 
> 
> >> > not even close to it in heavy elements!!!
> >>
> >>You are not making sense. You show nicely that you have no clue of
> >>the connections between electron energy levels and spectra.
> > 
> > so please enligh tme
> 
> That's a quite complicated topic. One needs a firm knowledge of QM
> in order to understand all this. I already told you to try reading
> up on "Koopman's theorem", for starters. You could also try 
> "Hartree-Fock", "coupled cluster" and "configuration interaction".
> -------------
you could do it in a few bottom lines
nothing in reality that cannot be explained shrtly
if it cant --- it is suspicious
God was not so cleaver' as all those qm scintists....
(take it as an historic amusing quote ....)
-------------
> Y.Porat
----------------
Loading