Re: The electron shell model is in challenge
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 08/10/04
- Next message: AA Institute: "E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Previous message: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:10:40 +0200
Y.Porat wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cf867p$7ib$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>Y.Porat wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>>No! Why on earth do you think that is possible??? How could
>>I do that???
>
> -----------------------
> see the Ocam Razor issues in physics are not so complicated as people
> present it
They are, even after applying Occam's razor.
Why do you think one needs to study physics for several years until
one can work as a physicist, if it's all so easy?
> or iow
> it can be started to be presentd in a simple way.-and later elaborated
> more in detail.
Well, what information do you want to have specifically?
>>>but nothing will do
>>>once no such experment was done
>>
>>Fro the 100th time: equivalent experiments were done.
>
> -------------
> you can say it 1000 times equivalent' is your assumption
No. I *demonstrated* with a *calculation* that *if* Au 80+ ions
existed, they would have been seen in those experiments.
Plain denial.
> we dont live from your assumptions
> moreover it has to be reproduced in different labouratories!!
Oh, millions of collisions in which no Au 80+ ever showed up
are not enough?
[snip ramblings]
>>>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 !
>>
>>I calculated that even after only one second, a Au 80+ ion would
>>be 730 *KILOMETERS* aheard of a Au 79+ ions. How on earth are the
>>"specific features" of the instruments relevant there? Do you *really*
>>want to tell me that the instruments would not be able to see that?
>
> --------------
> and Au 77 will be kilometers behind
Well, yes.
> and you donr know the resopnd
> time of your instruments!!
What on earth does that have to do with "response time of the
instruments"?
Do you *really* want to tell me that the instruments would not be able
to see a distance of 730 ***KILOMETERS***?
> and other doezen problems of acuracy
> you are not an exoeriental expert
No. But one does not need to be an experimental expert to see that
a distance of 730 ***KILOMETERS*** simply can't be missed by
the instruments.
> there is a differnce between a neat calculation on a flat paper and ----
> *experimental reality* which is ways more complicated
So, please tell me how the instruments could miss a distance of 730
***KILOMETERS***.
[snip ramblings]
>>>---------------
>>>just tell me from when disagreement is an insult?!!!!
>>
>>Saying that these scientists are all parrots *is* an insult.
>
> -----------
> not at all
Yes, it is.
> and again who on earth nominated you as their lowyer?
> as long as it is not directed personally to you it is not a personal
> insult.
So insults to other peoples are allowed, just not personal insults?
You have really a strange idea of morality.
>>>we do not examine now my model there is nothing in the title that
>>>mentiones my model
>>
>>Oh my goodness. You *do* know that there is *no* theory in physics
>>which covers *everything* it was designed for, don't you?
>>
>>So how on earth is it relevant that the Schroedinger equation so far
>>was *not* used for describing *all* known spectra?
>
> -------------
> they where trying but ...... failed!!
Wrong. Present evidence for that assertion, please.
> and that is a different story *that cannot be swaped under the carpet*
That story happened only in your dreams.
>>>2 qm does not cover all the specra of heavier elements
>>
>>It does cover many details of the spectra of many heavy elements. I have
>>told you that repeatedly, and Lothar Brendel even gave references to the
>>relevant literature.
>
> many but much less than in light elements
No quibble about that.
> and that should raise a question mark
Why? The answer is well-known. The higher the element, the more
computer power and time is needed in order to get all the details.
And it simply was not necessary to get all the details, so people
did not bother to do it so far.
> unless you like to stick your head in the sand!
Well, I leave that to you, Mr. "a distance of 730 kilometers
could have been missed due to the response time of the instruments".
>>>do you deny it??
>>>you have nothing but excuses for that fact
>>
>>*sigh* No one deemed it necessary so far to apply the Schroedinger
>>equation to all details in the spectra of all heavy elements. Why
>>on earth should that be a point against QM??? That has to be one of
>>the most nonsensical arguments I ever heard from you!
>
> ------------------
> now *you live in denial*
No. Why?
> a dominat theory has to confront any question that it is challenged
> or else it is just a partial theory.
Well, no one posed this challenge to far. Why is it a fault of QM
that it did not address a challenge which was not even posed to it?
>>>>>you demand too much from a single general equation
>>>>
>>>>Well, it fulfilled every demand so far.
>
> ---------------
> any demand of people who are in a state of forgivness to it
Absolute utter nonsense.
Hey, the Nobel prize would be in for someone who showed QM to be
false! So why on earth should anyone be merciful toward the theory???
> not good enough for more assertive critics
Hint: in order to be a scientist, one *has* to be an "assertive critic".
Essentially you accuse hundreds of thousands of physicists here of
incompetence.
> (which is the practice for any other theory ie
> *double standards*!!! of attitude!!
> such a behaviour is disastrous for advance.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Someone who takes every experimental result which remotely
resembles his model as evidence for it, without bothering to explain
the deviations of 10% and more, and without ever looking at how the
experiments are done, but as soon an experiment contradicts his model,
he simply asserts that the experiment or its interpretation has to
be in error, is not sensitive enough etc, should not accuse others
of a "double standard".
>>>not even the dammand to explain all spactraa of heavy elements
>>
>>This demand was so far not posed to it - simply because it was
>>not seen as necessary.
>
> -------------
> thats the point- too much too mant thrue believers too much forgivness.
Err, QM was tested in a lot of *other* areas. And still is. In all these
areas, it gave good results. How long do you plan to ignore this?
> again i say it is wrong only for heavy elements
Wrong. According to your book, QM is wrong for *all* elements.
> ie the assumptions that the number of electrons is the number
> of protons. in heavy elements.
For the umtenth time: that follows from a plethora of evidence,
for starters, from the conservation of charge!!!!!
That is not an assumption of QM - that follows from basic electrostatics
already!!!!!
>>How many tests does a physicsal theory have to pass, in your opinion,
>>until it finally can be seen as reliable?
>
> ----------
> i think that evenyou realise that no theory is 100 percent
> 'air tight' it is all temporary untill a better one comes.
I did not say anywhere that I consider QM as "100 percent air tight".
And now answer the question: How many tests does a physicsal theory have
to pass, in your opinion, until it finally can be seen as reliable?
Why do you keep harping on the heavy elements and ignore all the
thousands of *other* tests done on QM?
>>No, because it is totally obvious that a distance of 730 *KILOMETERS*
>>can't be simply overlooked, no matter what instruments are used
>>there.
>>
>>
>>
>>>---------------
>>>i know that qm didnt go much further in full covrge beyond
>>>something around the iron element
>>
>> From where do you know that?
>
> --------------
> from this ng from people who seem to know something about it
> i am many years in this ng
In other words: you are simply parrotting what you have been told.
You did not ever bother to look this up for yourself.
Hello, parrot.
>>>with the excuse of too little computer power
>>
>>> that you youself used above
>>
>>Why is that an excuse? If people don't think it is necessary to
>>have all the details, why should they invest a lot of computer power
>>to get that - computer power which can better be used for other purposes?
>>---------------
>
> because qm physist are more cleaver than God that crated all that stuff!!
I notice that you did not answer the question.
> you cant find coconuts in the north pole!
Right. But how do you know that *if* one would apply QM to study
all the details of the heavy elements, that would not work? How do you
explain that the results obtained so far were in accord with the
observations?
> nore any eletron fo r any proton in the heavy elements
> it is not exactly the same number not as neat as you immagine.
> once you do it- you are in a dead end!!
Charge conservation.
>>>thats exactly my claim heer.
>>
>>That's an unsupported assertion. I challenge you to show me only *one*
>>case where a prediction of QM for a heavy element was shown
>>experimentally to be false.
>
> -----------
> just show us the prediction of qm for the all the spectrum
> of Gold
> all means all nothing left unexplained.
I notice that you simply ignored my challenge. Big surprise.
[snip]
>>>>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
>>
>>That is wholly irrelevant for *my* point above. Read it again, and
>>try to understand it that time.
>>
>>Additionally, we also see the spectra of heavy elements directly - so
>>what's your point?
>
> --------------
> spetra detection is not direct observation of the causes of that spectra
Well, and observation of orbits is not direct observations of the
causes of these orbits, so my analogy is perfect.
I ask again: 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?
> again you ar emixing data with interpretation od data.
No, you are.
>>>all radiation is harmonic
>>
>>You did not answer my question. What do you *mean* by saying that
>>radiation is harmonic?
>
> no radiation without resonance it belongs to the harmonic motion world.
What on earth is the "harmonic motion world"?
And that did *still* *not* answer my question. What do you *mean* by
saying that radiation is harmonic?
>>>mind you
>>>a building as well as an atom of an electron
>>>has its natural frequency!
>>
>>True for the building, wrong for the atom and electron. If you
>>think otherwise, present evidence for that assertions, please.
>
> ----------------
> what are your eigenvalues?
Huh?????
>>>it is only if the outer pwer has some similar motion
>>>that you get resonance
>>
>>"pwer"???
>
> sorry power external power that causes resonance
> -----------
Well, that is wrong. The outer power does *not* need to have
a similar motion. It is enough if the relevant Fourier component
of the outer power is large enough to overcome the damping.
>>>it must not be with the same frequenct
>>
>>Resonacne must not be with the same frequency????? Say, how many
>>silly statements about waves do you plan to make here?
>>
>>---------------
>
> the driving power must not be witht hesame frequenct but it must be
> *syncronised* do you get what it means syncronised??
No.
> i hope so
> now dont you give me the smallest credit that i learned something about
> it may be even more than you in earth quake ananysis??
> sop please dont catch me in slips of words just think about the
> substance
Do you know what a Fourier analysis is?
>>>it can be say 3 times slower but must be syncronized
>>
>>"synchronized" in what way?
Care to answer that?
>>>in order that it will drive ower 'building' to resonance
>>>yet there is no radiation without *resonance*!
>>
>>Unsupported assertion.
>
> -------------
> sorry for your .... (insult ... but we are comited not to insult)
> just go learn something about it.
It is a *fact* that there can be radiation without resonance.
Try bremstrahlung for starters, or look at the analogy of throwing
a stone into water.
>>Again the example of throwing a stone into the water. No resonance
>>there, but nevertheless a wave forms.
>
> --------------
> whiloe you through a stone to the water
> there are some procecess there that you didnt folow
> in the atomic world wile you hit an atom somehow
> you cause it to resonate
Unsupported, nonsensical assertion.
Water waves are not atoms which vibrate. Water waves consist
of atoms which go up and down! That is a *translational* motion,
not a vibrational one!
> only by resonating you get
> a wave with a certain spscific radiatin
Wrong. Nonsense. Trivially shown to be false, if one knows
*anything* about wave mechanics!
> you can pinch a stric of a musical instrument - lust one pinch
> but that is good enough to cause resonance
Err, one pinch is not a harmonic outer power. Hence we have here
yet another example where an outer power which is *not* harmonic
causes a harmonic motion. Thanks for shooting yourself into the foot.
> the tune you heare from a musical instriment is due to resonance
Resonance of what to what?
> btw did you ever learned to play music?
Yes. Piano.
[snip]
>>>and no resonance without harmonic motion.
>>
>>Wrong. Try reading up on "Fourier analysis".
>
> -----------
> give me a break with mathematicians who know just matemathics.....
For understanding wave mechanics and resonance, one *needs* mathematics.
Have you looked at the thread in the last days where the gravitational
force inside a hollow cylinder was discussed? There is was nicely shown
that the intuitive result is wrong, and one needs math in order to
arrive at the right result.
[snip]
>>>it is not just one electrons that works there
>>>*it is many of them#
>>
>>Unsupported assertion.
>
> ----------
> comon we are not dealing here with hydrogen we are dealing with heavy
> elements so do you expect that all those electrons there
> will be frozen???!!
No. But nevertheless, your assertion is unsupported.
[snip]
>>>so each one can make another frequency!!!!
>>
>> > and you get a mix of frequencyes
>>
>>Err, the light emitted by atoms consists of an infinite amount
>>of frequencies. Do you want to claim that there is an infinite
>>amount of electrons?
>>---------------
>
> again (lack of crative immagination)
> it is not only that there are many e;ectrons
> even a specific electron has *many* degrees of vibrations
An infinite amount?
BTW, please support this assertion.
> have you heared about asay harmonics?
Yes. Please present evidence that electrons can vibrate, and
that harmonics exist there.
> leta take ower musical string:
> you can strech it (the same srting!!)
> to different degrees and you get different tunes.
So electrons are stretched?
> all together you get much more 'tunes' than strrings
> much more frequency spectra than no of electrons.
An infinite amount?
>>>that is exactly the difficulty in predicting
>>>heavy elemets radiation you get a mwess of frequencies
>>
>>You get a "mess of frequencies" already for quite light elements.
>>Nevertheless, QM can explain those.
>
> -------
> yess only for light ones !!
QM can explain quite a lot for heavy ones, too.
And for the umtenth time: QM contradicts your model even for
the light elements.
>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>Unsupported assertion.
Still not supported.
>>>mircowave belong as well to electrons radiation
>>
>>Unsupported assertion.
Still not supported.
>>Hint: the range from micro wave to light frequencies is about one
>>million. Do you *really* want to claim that all of these frequencies are
>>caused by vibrations of the electrons?
>
> -----------
> yess see my 'musical explanation above
So a vibrating string could give off frequencies over a range
of one million? Come on!!!
>>>>>>>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
>>
>>Support it or drop it.
Still not supported.
[snip]
>>You *still* have not answered the question *why* QM is able to do all
>>of that correctly. Luck? Fraud?
>>
>>How long do you plan to evade that question?
Again evaded.
>>>>>>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 yet again, you insult thousands of scientists...
>
> ---------------
> 500 yeras ago millions of people and even scintists
> believed that thje sun goes around the earth....
Give even *one* example of a *scientist* who *ever* believed that.
And not only believed that - but examined all the available evidence,
tested this hypotheses, and *still* kept believing in that. Otherwise
this is a false analogy!
> to tell them that it is otherwise should be an insult
> a personal one ?
Telling scientists that they are either cheating or suckers is an
insult, yes.
> 2 no one nominated you to be thjeir lowyer....
Irrelevant.
[snip]
>>>i told you i am acrackpot so where is the hypocritism?(:-)
>>
>>How convenient.
>
> --------------
> now realy Bjoern do you expect from a single person
> to crate a theory that will comptete all along with a theory
> that was worked on for a cenrury??!!
If this person keeps claiming that standard physics is wrong,
that hundreds of thousands of scientists are cheating or suckers
or parrot, that he alone has found the truth, then I expect that
person to back up his assertions. Can't you understand that?
If you can't back up your assertions, shut up, plain and simple.
> and i am already 66 not a youndster. in such age
> 1 the ability becomes less
> 2 the motivation becomes less.
> it is young people thar should get on with it
> and it will come sooner or later!!
Why should anyone care to go on with your ideas as long as you
don't bother to back them up?
>>>>>>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?
>>>>>
>>>>>-----------
>>
>>>>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
>>
>>*sigh* I told you above that according to your index, that section
>>should begin at page 108, but at pages 108-110, you discuss *nothing*
>>about quicksilver, liquids etc. You only talk about alloys.
>
> later i explain the stability rules
> see pages 109 110
Wrong. These pages contain nothing about stability. There, only
the possibilities for forming alloys are discussed.
So I ask for the *fourth* time:
where does your book address the questions I posed above?
> did you got the explanation of the 'stability of a 'table'?
Yes, you wrote that somewhere. But that makes no sense in the
microcosm. Weren't you the one who kept telling me that the
microcosm is different from the macrocosm?
> if it is only on one legg it will be unstable
> even 3 legs on the sam line it will fall
> only 3 legs not on the same line it will be stable
> (3 is the minimum)
Stable with respect to what?
> now in my Hg see the little cube that prsent scematically
> the edge orbitsls of Hg
> it hason one pole **only* 2 neutron chain of orbitls
> at the front pole 2 deutron and 2 neutron chain of orbitals
> the 2 at the back is less than usual for metals
What does "less than usual" mean here? Are there other metals
with that structure or not?
> all the stron metals has 4 orbitals at each pole
"strong" in what sense?
> 2 is not good enough for creating a solid metal-so just a liquid
Why are the orbitals at the front pole not important here also?
> even though Hg is a heavy elent
> it is similar say with the gass radon
> it is heavy but its edge orbitals are unsymetric ie 'cryppled'
> fo rcreating a solid or even liquid
How do you determine from the structure if the element will be a
gas or a liquid?
> and i could go on like that with a lot of elements to explain thier mechnic
> andd not only mechanic properties
> no one ever went so far inheavy elements
> it is unprecedented!!
You invent rules nilly-willy everytime something goes wrong. No wonder
that you are able to "explain" so many things.
> and mind you
> the edge orbitlas are not the only aspects that fit to experimental data
> it is nuclear aspects like no of isops that fitt perfectly
I already told you several times why that is wrong. You keep ignoring
that.
> (the lightest the heaviest) beta radiators
About 1.5 years ago, we had a discussion where I presented evidence
that this is wrong. As usual, you ignored it.
> and their location
That there are fixed locations is simply an unsupported assertion
by you.
> etc etc all fits and cross and double cross verified!
And deviations of 10% and more ignored, and contrary evidence ignored,
and lots of new rules made up everytime there is a problem etc.
> cannot be accidental!!
Yes, it can.
> no way!!
Yes, it can.
Additionally, please consider that the evidence for QM is at least
1,000 times as large as the evidence for your model...
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: AA Institute: "E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Previous message: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- In reply to: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- Next in thread: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- Reply: Y.Porat: "Re: The electron shell model is in challenge"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
