Re: The electron shell model is in challenge

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:09:47 +0200

Y.Porat wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cfa6v1$h1f$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
>
>>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:
>>>>
>>

[snip]

>>>>>>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?

Ignored.

>>>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?

Hello? Care to tell me that?

>>>>>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.
>>---------------------------
>
> too much rumbling mumbling
> your calculations are just speculations untill....
> a specific experiment is done to back it up
> that is *physics*

*sigh* The experiment *was* done.

In the RHIC, Au 78+ ions are accelerated to 100 GeV. My calculation
shows plainly that if there had been Au 79+ ions in the beam,
this would have been ***SEEN***!!!

If you continue to claim that the instruments probably were not
sensitive enough to detect this, despite my calculation showing
that there would have been a distance of 730 ***KILOMETERS*** between
the Au 78+ and the Au 79+ ions, you only show that you are in plain
denial. You deny even the laws of electrostatics!

> if you dont get it
> we have no comon language and this point is closed for me

If you keep denying that a distance of 730 kilometers would have
been seen, you are a brain dead idiot, plain and simple. And yes, this
is a personal insult. It is perfectly appropriate for such a behaviour
like yours here.

>>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***?
>
> -------------
> yess

Brain dead idiot.

> prove experimentally i am wrong

How?

> ---------------
>
>>
>>>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.
>
> -----------
> yess

Say, are you related to Gollum? Your "yess" resembles his style
of speaking very much.

> that is for experts to tell

One does not need to be an expert to see that a distance of 730
***KILOMETERS*** *obviously* would have been seen!

It is unbelievable how much you are in denial!

>>>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.
>
> -----------
> that is not insults that is legitimate disagreement

And that statement shows once again that you are a brain dead idiot.

> ----------
>
> ments. I have
>
>>>>told you that repeatedly, and Lothar Brendel even gave references to the
>>>>relevant literature.
>
> --------------
> experiment man experiments

Done. You refuse to accept that. Plain denial. Brain dead idiot.

> direct evidence

Given. You refuse to accept that. Plain denial. Brain dead idiot.

> not interpolations ans speculations!

No interpolations or speculations here. You refuse to accept that. Plain
denial. Brain dead idiot.

>>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.
>
> --------------
> that is a miserable excuse *for a dominant theory!!

WHY??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

> you must dmitt (but you will never do it) that in that point
> qm has a problem

WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU SEE A PROBLEM HERE???????????????????????????

> crackpot porat was pushing it to a corner.

UTTER COMPLETE BULLSHITTING TOTAL 100% ***NONSENSE***!

Brain dead idiot.

> (rotfel... you see i am a prophet about your automatic reactions(-:))

Well, your prophetic abilities are apparently as bad as your
understanding of physics.

>>>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".
>
> ---------
> that is your nice chess game that you play with youself!

Brain dead idiot.

>>>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?
>>---------------
>
> so now i Y.Porat postet that challenge
> and that is exactly the title of this thread!!

Why should science react to a challenge posed by a crackpot?

>>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 a sci physics argument it is a political argument
> iow not acceptable in physics discussions

Your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote. Read it again, and
try to understand it this time.

>>>>>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.
>
> -----
> from now on it will be neccessary!!

Says the brain dead idiotic crackpot who is in plain denial.

>>>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!!!!!
>
> --------------
> did it ever occured to you that the properties of a proton
> inside the nuc are not as a free one???

Yes, that's a possibility. Care to present evidence for it?

> ie some of those protons lost their charge
> while bonded inside the nuc??

Loosing of charge contradicts conservation of charge, i.e.
Maxwell's equations. Care to present evidence that Maxwell's
equations do not hold for protons, and tell us what alternative
laws hold for them?

> now you will come back to Au +80

No. To Maxwell's equations.

If you call that an "extrapolation" and claim that it has never
been proven that these equations apply to protons, you only show
once again that you have no clue of science.

> and i wil demand from you to show that there is never
> Au 85+ .......

The same argument holds here as for Au 80+. The same argument
you keep ignoring, you brain dead idiot in plain denial.

>>That is not an assumption of QM - that follows from basic electrostatics
>>already!!!!!
>
> ------------------
> unless you have false assumptions thatr the proron
> ie all of them in the nuc keep their electric charge always

What's your basis for calling that a false assumption?

> it has to be proven experimentally

For the 1000th time: experiments never prove anything!

OTOH, we indeed *have* evidence that the protons in the nucleus
still have their charge: Rutherford scattering, X-ray spectra etc.

> i deny it prove me wrong experimentally.

That would require first that you understand the experiments.

>>>>How many tests does a physicsal theory have to pass, in your opinion,
>>>>until it finally can be seen as reliable?
>
> -----------
> forever..... untill porat and others will have no questions to ask

That's a totally unreasonable request. Next piece of evidence that
you are indeed a brain dead idiot who is in plain denial.

Considering that there are a lot of people who still question
heliocentrism, you would then have to say that heliocentrism
is also not a reliable idea. I bet you don't do that, right?

>>>>>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.
>
> -----------
> parroting is your expertise

Well, here you show nicely that you can do that better than I.
Instead of reading up on this on yourself, studying it, looking
what evidence is available, what literature there is, you simply
repeat ad nauseaum what you once have been told here in the newsgroup.

I don't know what else one could call that than "parrotting".

> you nevr innovated anything in physics

Since I told you several times now what I have done in physics, this
is a lie, plain and simple.

> i did

What you invented is not physics. It is a collection of unsupported
assertions and wild fantasies.

> now it is not just from the ng
> my model predicts it as well
> qm will never go much firther in heavy elemnts solution
> that is a prediction!!

Nice. Then it should be no problem for you to go to the literature
and dig out an article where QM failed to describe a heavy element.
Good luck.

>>>because qm physist are more cleaver than God that crated all that stuff!!
>>
>>
>>
>>>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?
>
> --------
> we do not live from assumptions or speculations just from
> proven facts

Nothing in experimental science is ever proven, idiot.

> and the fact now is that qm didnt fo much further than iron

I have repeatedly told you that QM *did* go further. Lothar Brendel
even gave links to relevant articles. So repeating this falsehold is
a lie, plain and simple.

>>>>>>solar systems? That the same laws of light emission we observe on the
>>>>>>earth hold also for the sun and other stars?
>
I notice that you *still* have not told me why we are allowed to
say that the same law of gravity as here on earth also holds in other
solar systems. Why is this an allowed extrapolation?

I would call that a double standard.

>>>>>all radiation is harmonic
>>>>
>>>>You did not answer my question. What do you *mean* by saying that
>>>>radiation is harmonic?
>
> -------------
> ask your experts

Why do you not simply answer the question? After all, *you* used the
term here.

> if em radiation (EM thats what we deal now nothing else)
> so ask them if that radiation is caused by resonance
> and be honest enough to come back to me
> with their answer!

What experts would that be? Electrodynamics is, AFAIK, not an active
area of research, since all what could have been done on this topic
was already completed decades ago.

OTOH, you just have to look into books on electrodynamics (e.g. Jackson)
to plainly see that radiation is *not* caused by resonance.

My own example of throwing a stone into the water already disproves that!!!

>>>the driving power must not be witht hesame frequenct but it must be
>>>*syncronised* do you get what it means syncronised??
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>>"synchronized" in what way?
>
> ---------------
> syncronised i mean that joints of those waves

What on earth are "joints" of waves?

> will coincide no matter after how many cycles but systematically

So you perhaps mean waves whose frequencies are an integral multiple
of the resonance frequency, and which are in phase with the oscillation
of the object one wishes the waves to resonate with?

>>Try bremstrahlung for starters, or look at the analogy of throwing
>>a stone into water.
>
> water is not relevant here

It is.

> and brems strahlung is a nice word
> but i see there no contradiction to my claim

There is no resonance in bremsstrahlung, but nevertheless radiation.

> that em radiation is by resonance

Unsupported, nonsensical assertion. Do you know how the spectrum
of bremsstrahlung looks like? And how it depends on the energies
of the electrons?

> i gues that in bremstrhlung you have resonance even for a shrt time.

Present evidence for that guess, please.

You yourself told me just above that we shouldn't use speculations,
but only proof. Apparently you don't think that you have to follow your
own advice. Hypocrite. Double standard.

>>>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.
>>-----------
>
> you shot your leg
> a pinched string is vibrating the air to resonance
> without that you done hear a tune!!

Nonsense. The air around the string is not in any way moving
resonantly with the string.

And additionally, irrelevant. The counterexample to your claim here is
that the pinch, a non-harmonic force, makes the string emitting
"radiation" (sound waves). Hence emitting radiation is not based on
resonance. qed.

You are, as usual, in plain denial.

> mind you phd Feuerbacher....

Why should I mind your nonsense? Your claim is clearly false.
You simply refuse to accept that. Plain denial. Brain dead idiot.

>>>>>and no resonance without harmonic motion.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. Try reading up on "Fourier analysis".
>
> just unneccessary obfuscation

No, not at all.

Fourier analysis is *crucial* for analysing resonances.

[snip]

>>>>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?
>
> infinit* eh Mr Phd???

Answer the question.

>>>have you heared about asay harmonics?
>>
>>Yes. Please present evidence that electrons can vibrate, and
>>that harmonics exist there.
>
> -----------
> lets ask other experts to intervean here!

I notice that you did not bother to present evidence. You yourself told
me just above that we shouldn't use speculations, but only proof.
Apparently you don't think that you have to follow your
own advice. Hypocrite. Double standard.

>>>leta take ower musical string:
>>>you can strech it (the same srting!!)
>>>to different degrees and you get different tunes.
>>
>>So electrons are stretched?
>
> yess in away - the electron orbital by different
> energy levels

Evidence?

>>>all together you get much more 'tunes' than strrings
>>>much more frequency spectra than no of electrons.
>>
>>An infinite amount?
>
> infinit Eh .....(-:)

Answer the question.

>>>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.
>
> -------------
> here we have again your undemocratic education
> do we live in a dictatorship of anything
> may be dictatorship of scince??
> that is quite the opposite than the scince spirit!!

Pointing out that someone who can not back up his assertions
should not make them if he intends to lead a scientific discussion
has nothing to do with dictatorship.

If you don't back up your assertion, you can't participate in a
scientific discussion. Plain and simple.

And that's one of the reasons why *none* of your posts and of the
threads you iniate are scientific, despite your constant claims
that we are doing a scientific discussion.

> shut up eh???

Yes. Shut up. Quit usenet, take some basic books, sit down and learn
physics. You would do everyone in this newsgroup a favor - including
yourself.

> here you deserve a nice personal insult
> but i will refrain from it

Unfortunately for you, I do not refrain from personal insults.
You are a brain dead idiot who is in plain denial. There you have it.

>>>>>>>>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?

Still not answered.

>>>>>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.
>
> for aloys and for liquids and for gases.

Wrong. On those pages, *only* alloys are discussed.

Say, how silly can you get? You don't even know what your own book says!!!

>>So I ask for the *fourth* time:
>>where does your book address the questions I posed above?

Still not answered.

>>>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?
>
> -----
> in this case it works as well

Unsupported assertion.

> i notices it ny folowing examples
> i cant bring all of them just now and here at once.
> you have to folow my book and invest some time in it.

If you finally tell me where in your book I can find this...

>>>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?
>
> stable with respect say to its neighbours

That makes no sense. Don't you know what "stable with respect
to something" means?

> ie no relative translation or rotation.

That would not be stability, but simply resting.

>>>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?
>
> ----------
> the other metals that do metal latices have at least
> 2 orbitals at the back pole and other 3 at the front one

Juist above you said that "2 orbitals at the back is less than
usual for metals". Now you say that other metals "have at least
2 orbitals at the back pole". Which is it? Can't you make up your
mind?

> while those at the front are not at the same plan as the back ones
> see for instance a tetraheder
> an element that has only neutron chainorbitals
> cannot make a metal latice s in the case of Hg

You did not answer my question how many metals there are with
only 2 orbitals at the back pole.

>>>all the stron metals has 4 orbitals at each pole
>>
>>"strong" in what sense?
>
> mechanically

Elasticity, or what?

>>>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?
>
> -------------
> it is acombination of front and back

Then why did you mention only the role of the orbitals at the back pole
here?

> just think of it as a joint in the latice
> that joint has connections in 3d directions
> just remenber ower discussion lately about different latice structures
> like the diamond or iron group etc

Yes. You failed miserably there, as usual.

>>>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?
>
> -----------
> for instance take Radon and try to tell me why it is a gass
> i think you can do it youself.

It is your model, so why don't *you* tell me?

And I don't want examples - I want a rule which holds true
for *all* elements!

>>>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.
>
> -----------
> it goes on systematically along many elements

And as soon as it fails, you invent yet another rule.

>>>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.
>
> --------
> you told me so who are you to tell me ??

Huh?

>>>(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.
>
> --------------
> nothing like that it was your private assement
> because you didnt get it

Look into the mirror. This statement very nicely applies to you.

>>>and their location
>>
>>That there are fixed locations is simply an unsupported assertion
>>by you.
>
> --------------
> ok just write it before you and take it or leave it

Support it or drop it.

>>>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.
>>
>>-----------
>
> i have no ida where from you took that 10 percent

Right from your book. This is even generous - in one place, IIRC,
you had a deviation of 25%!

> and in what section of my book

Different sections. This occurs again and again.

> hint there are more important sections ther
> and less important.

Well, what are the most important ones?

>>>cannot be accidental!!
>>
>>Yes, it can.
>
> -----------
> means you didnt got it completely.

No. Simply that I understand better than you what one can achieve
by using a lot of free parameters and a lot of arbitrary rules.

There is a plethora of crackpot models out there on the web. Most of
them are able to reproduce part of the data very nicely. Many of them
reproduce far more data far better than your model. But all of these
models contradict each other totally. I leave the obvious conclusion to you.

>>>no way!!
>>
>>
>>Additionally, please consider that the evidence for QM is at least
>>1,000 times as large as the evidence for your model...
>
> an irelevant chest drumming (on others chests (:-)

Not irrelevant at all. If you say that the (rather small) amount of
evidence you have for *your* model can not be accidental - what does
that imply then for QM, where there is at least 1,000 times as much
evidence as for your model? I leave the obvious conclusion to you.

> Bye
> Y.Porat
> ------------------
> ps we must be shorter and not disperse on dozens of issues

We could be much shorter if you would finally drop your idiotic, brain
dead, plain denying, claims about Au 79+.

Bye,
Bjoern