Re: The electron shell model is in challenge

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 08/26/04 

Date: 26 Aug 2004 02:37:25 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cghm5v$e5d$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cgf192$lea$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cgckm9$4b3$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cg4dap$p63$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >>>>>

>
>
> > and its right interpretations
>
> Feel free to explain the observations ***QUANTITATIVELY*** *without*
> the assumption that the charge of a nucleus with Z protons is Z*e.
>
>
> > you even calculated yoyr fertz
>
> Yes. Your point?
--------------
you can calculate any idiotic calculation
the point it what is its connection to *reality* !
actualy i dont have any objection to suggetions
the problem start to anounce your hypotetical invention
as a truth of nature.
-----------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>And, BTW, as soon as you publish your stuff, it *is* indeed your
> >>responsibility to support it. That is *science*.
> >
> > ---------------
> > right and i did it partially
> > it is a one mans work
>
> THAT IS NO EXCUSE!!!
>
> E.g. relativity was also a one man's work! The classical law of
> gravity was also a one man's work!!! Nevertheless, both Einstein
> and Newton supported their ideas *far* better than you!!!
>
>
> > btw you say 'responsibility as if i got paied for it or as if
> > i presented it as the super last truth
>
> You do.
>
>
> > if you read my forward to my book you will see al my disclasimres
> > so bottom line you are decieving by mispresenting
> > my attitude to my work.
>
> Despite these disclaimers, you keep acting in this newsgroup as if
> your model were really the "super last truth". So I am not
> misrepresenting you at all.

so what is more reliable my written disclaimer
or your personal judgement about my behaviour
can you quote a place in which i sayed that my theories
are 'a final truth??'
--------------------
>
 
> Well, I asked you if you can do it *quantitatively*. You said then
> "i can do" (see above) - but now you admit even yourself that it is only
> *qualitative*. In other words: your claim above "i can do" was a lie.
>
>
> > but an unpresedented idea
> > it need a lot of work and time to do it quantitative
>
> Please do. Until you can show that your idea can explain the data
> *quantitatively*, Rutherford's experiment is still evidence that
> the charge of a gold nucleus is 79+.
-------------
show it experimentally that it is not 80 croock
the acuracy of your formulla is not good enough to make the difference
between 79 and 80.!
--------------
>
>
>
> >>Rutherford's formula (4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10 - these are all
> >>essentially equivalent formulations) was derived on the assumption
> >>that a nucleus with Z protons in it has a charge of Z*e. The
> >>experiments show that this formula describes the results very nicely. If
> >>you can derive this formula without this assumption, feel free to do so.
> >>---------------
you didnt edplain why in figure
> >
> > yet are the experinetal data of scattering acurate enough
> > to distunguish between Au 79 and Au 80??
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > i dont delude myself to get an honest answer from you!!
>
>
>
> >>>btw i dont know why you call it 'predictions of rutherford
> >>>he di dhis experiment at rhe beginning of the 20th century
> >>>Geiger did this nonsense physically calculation many decadeslater
> >>
> >>Absolute utter nonsense. Both the experiments and the theoretical
> >>explanations were done in the years 1911 to 1913. Add "history of
> >>science" to the list of things you know nothing about.
> >
> > yess but what was first ??
> > the experiment or the calculation???!!!
> > can i get an honest answer to that??
>
> First there was an experiment which yielded unexpected results,

ok so it was the experiment first right!!
---------------
> done by Geiger and Marsden, then came Rutherford's theoretical
> explanation, and then came several additional experiments to
> check Rutherford's predictions. All this happened in the years 1911
> to 1913.
---------
so what they did is to explain the results
so it is not a prediction anymore!!
-----------------
>
> And now retract your assertion above that Geiger did this many
> decades later. And that Geiger did a calculation.
> -----------
not decaded than years does not chage the bottom line
it is not a prediction
no genious could expect at those times such results!!
it 3as the experiment that was leading it!
----------------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>4 of them are about 7000 times more massive
> >>
> >>Interesting. 4 times 188 gives 7000?
> >
> > ---------
> > idiot and personal enemy
>
>
>
> >>Or did you mean "nucleon" above instead of "nucleid"?
>
> Apparently you indeed meant that, and still don't know the difference
> between "nucleon" and "nuclide"... *sigh*
-----------
idiot
------------
>
>
> >>If yes, then
> >>your numbers begin to become sensible - but they are quite irrelevant,
> >>since there is not only one nucleon in the gold nucleus, but about 197
> >>of them!
> >
> > ----------
> > lucky me that you rell me that did you see my graphic model
>
> "rell"???
>
> And what has this to do with your graphic model???
----------------
 see there if i know the exaxct figures and more than that croock
---------------
>
>
>
>
> >>>ie all your 79 electrons around the nuc are like a fly to an elephant
> >>>so it is not the electrons but the nuc.
> >>
> >>Well, no one ever disputed that Rutherford scattering is caused
> >>by the nucleus. Hint: THAT WAS THE CRUCIAL POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT!!!!!
> >>--------------
> >
> > see later of course it is by the nuc
>
> Well, why did you feel the need to point out this *ABSOLUTELY
> OBVIOUS FACT*, WHICH WAS THE CRUCIAL POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT?
>
>
> > and not the stupid electrons around it.
>
> Electrons are stupid?
no they are meaningless wile coliding wiht an alpha!
---------
>
>
> > that is my main reasoning
> > and not only mines that is everybodiie understanding
>
> Then why did you feel the need to point out this *ABSOLUTELY
> OBVIOUS FACT*, WHICH WAS THE CRUCIAL POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT?
>
>
> > but the folowing interpretation is new!!
>
> Yes. And as usual, it is qualitative handwaving, which ignores all
> the work which already had been done on this in the last 90 years.
>
 
>
> > it is not an English lesson if thas all you can do!!!
>
> No. It is merely pointing out your incredible laziness and carelessness.
>
>
>
> >
> > that is still unexplained why to the square and not linear!!
>
> *sigh* Look at the derivation of Rutherford's formula. There you can
> see quite clearly where the square comes from.
i cant see it
may be you can tell me
anyway my claim is that it should not at all be a square relation
it should be linear to the amount of charge.
-----------
>
>
> > if you start to deal more on the mases and momentum
> > and 'spring elesticity of their outer connections
> > it might be better understood!!
>
> As I already told you below: this was studied already 90 years ago.
> -------------
but not of a whole mesh of the metal latice
at those days the could not know or do it
it need computers got it moron??
--------------
>
> >>>the elctric force afaik if linearily proportion to the
> >>>electrich intensity so
> >>
> >>What on earth is "electric intensity"?????
> >>
> >>Do you perhaps mean the strength of the electric field???
> >
> > yes that is caused by the + 'z electrons'
>
> Err, just above you said yourself that the scattering is caused
> by the nucleus, not by the electrons, so how are they relevant here?
> ------------
i sayed it is cused by the mass of the nuc not all by an electric charge
even a neutral body can repell anothe rcoliding body!!
-------------
>
>
> >>>why as a square of the atomic weight ??
> >>>can you expalin that ??
> >>
> >>Yes. See above.
and you will explain why soqare of the whole charge
>
> Have you ever looked at the derivation of Rutherford's formula?
> You haven't, right? If you had, you would *know* where the square
> comes from.
see above
-------------
>
>
>
> >>>so let me bring an alternative explanation
> >>>as you know the devil is in the interpretations!!
> >>>it is not just merly an electric problem
> >>>ios is as well a mechanical problem!!
> >>
> >>Then why does Rutherford's formula, which was derived by assuming
> >>that the scattering occurs entirely by electrostatic forces between
> >>a nucleus with charge Z*e and an electron of charge -e, fit so
> >>nicely to the observations?
> >>-----------
> >
> > 1 i am not sure how acurate it folowes all along the periodic table
>
> You have no evidence that it does fail anywhere.
>
> And it works at least fine for the elements presented in this paper.
> How do you explain that?
>
>
> > see later for oinstance Ag and Au that are 30 electrons apart
> > an yet so close!!
>
> Err, you *did* notice that this is a (double) *logarithmic* plot, didn't
> you? Being close on a logarithmic scale does not mean that they are
> *really* very close!!!
>
> You *do* understand logarithmic plots, don't you?
yess but that does not explain why the line of gold deviates
from the stright line!!
----------
>
> Also notice that the theoretical lines are already close to each other
> - so the formula *predicts* that the values should be close to each
> other! Hence you can't use the fact that the values are close to each
> other as argument *against* the formula!

does it predict that they will be not all along parallel!!!
>
>
> > once you realy understand how a metal latice
> > is built:
> > it is nuclei connected by a network of electron connection
>
> That's only very vaguely right.
>
>
> > the network gives the elestic nature no matter how heavy the
> > nuc is
> > indeed a heavy one will recoil backwards ans *sideward*
> > less while a light one will do it in more recoil
> > that might explain why the heavy ones repell backwards more
> > alpha incidenting particles
> > that is a brand new explanation a copyright exlanation!!
>
> Feel free to make a *quantitative* argument out of this. Until
> you manage to explain the factor (Z*e^2)^2 *quantitatively*,
> you have no point. Merely handwaving.
>
>
> > that is worth examining
>
> Please do.
>
>
> > anyway it is connected to realistic facts of latixce structure
> > that 'you' explanation' ignored completely
>
> What you wrote above were unsupported assertions, not "realistic
> facts".
>
>
> > or may be did it *indirectly throgh* the 'charge' explanation
> > but cannot be close enough to reality.
>
> Then why does the formula agree so nicely with the observations?
you se nicely i dont
in addition we saw there only a few element
not all of them !!!
-----------------
>
>
> > btw my suspicion is that the 'right reswults of your formulas
> > are accidentally fiting here and there to reality
> > and even were fitted in by intruducing 'factors'
>
> What's your evidence that there were "factors" introduced anywhere?
> That's a completely unsupported assertion. Essentially you are accusing
> Geiger and Marsden of fraud!
i didnt say that i say you are a parrot
---------------
>
 
> >
> > not is you do it right
> > with the right 'springs' right conestions directions etc
>
> Well, please present the calculation.
>
>
> > and dont forget you are talking toa structural engineer:
>
> I wouldn't.
>
>
>
> > while we are calculating say a gridd of steel(or a palte)
> > we take all the gridd in acount!
> > it is not only the near neighbours that do the job
> > it is all the grid - even parts that are distant from the
> > tested point
>
> Yes, that is quite clear. That is precisely the *reason* why
> recoil is negligible! Thanks for showing yet again that you
> don't know the arguments which were made.
-----------
idiot
it explaines as well the deviation in recoil in different angles
-------------
>
>
> > only a computer program can do it
>
> One can make quite reliable estimates already without a
> computer.
-----------
moron
-------------
>
>
> > anyway anyone who neglects that situation
> > is nothing more than a dumn mathmatician not a real physicist.
>
> The grid was *not* neglected. People calculated what effect it
> has, and found that it is negligible.
bring to us evidence for it !!(lier)
-------------
>
>
>
> > so common mathemathical physicists
> > start to be more modest!! for the sake of advance!!
>
> Someone who thinks he has found a crucial point which was overlooked by
> hundreds of thousands of physicists for 90 years says that physicists
> should be more modest? Pot. Kettle. Black.
to be more modest does not whatsoever belong to you.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>if that is the case *the mass of that body is palying a major roll
> >>>in the results:
> >>>if it is a small nuc colided by an alpha
> >>>*it retreats back and sideways* during the collition
> >>>therefore less chaces for a full recoil of the coliding alpha:
> >>>if it is a more massive nuc at the foil
> >>>more chances for back retreat of the alpha
> >>
> >>Nice. And now please tell me why the result depends on the *square*
> >>of the mass.
> >
> > --------------
> > may be you help me witht that and be a partner instead of an enemy??
>
> Why should I help you developping an alternative explanation? We
> already *have* a formula which works very well. You *still* have not
> explained how this can be (well, your "explanation" seems to be fraud
> by Geiger and Marsden...)
-----------
it is fraud only for a parrot like you that is a zero pioneering scintist
>
>
> > i think that mass and momentum and impact(energy)
> > and elestic background do it.
>
> It is *your* model. It is *your* claim. So *you* have to do it.
>
> You could start by looking into the literature, and examining the
> huge heap of things which were already done in this direction.
>
>
> > it is obviously not trivial more complicated
> > a lot of compuer work as well )than the existing
> > but i think will bring betetr results.
>
>
> >>*quantitatively*, you lied. Yet again.
> >
> > --------
>
>
>
>
> >
> > i did it qualitatively
>
> Err, yes, that's the point!
>
>
> > so far as a start just to show you that
> > the existing paradigma is not the final word.
>
> In order to prove this, you have to provide quantitative results,
> not only assertions and qualitative handwavings.
>
>
> >>>see above
>
> Have you read up on the Rosenbluth formula in the meantime?
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>>>and 2 what are the error margines?
> >>>>
> >>>>See the link.

no answer
> >>>
> >>>i cant see it
> >>
> >>References to the literature are given. Look it up.
>
> Did you look it up?
>
>
>
> >>>i can see for instance that in figure 4-12
> >>>the results fior gold and silver are too close!!
> >>>there is even one point (the one just befor the top one
> >>>that neerly coincide for gold and silver!!
> >>
> >>Yes. So what??? They also coincede nicely with the predicted lines.
osretige go on sticking your head in the sand.
> >>--------------
> >
> > so what
> > you are sticking your head in the sand!!
>
> No, that would be you.
>
> There are hundreds of points which lie nicely on the line, thereby
> showing that Rutherford's formula *works*. You choose to ignore all
> those points and concentrate on the very few ones where there are
> *minor* deviations. And ignore that they *still* coincede nicely
> with the predicted lines. And don't bother to go to the literature
> and read up which error margins these points have.

you brought here only a fw emenets
and very quickly i could find contardictions and question marks
----------
>
>
> >
>
> Two words: logarithmic scale.
lier
>
> Are you *really* to dumb to either not notice that, or to not understand
> the significance of that?
lier
>
>
>
> >>If the assumption that the charge of the nucleus is Z*e is wrong,
> >>then how can it be than even *one* of the points lies on the predicted
> >>line? In reality, at least 90% of the points lie on the predicted
> >>lines!
>
> You keep ignoring this argument.
90 percent is not even close to 100 percent
why is that deviation??!!
-------------
>
>
> >>All spectra calculations are based on the assumption that the
> >>charge of the nucleus is Z*e, and that there are Z electrons in the
> >>atoms. All such calculations give results which agree nicely with
> >>the observations. How do you explain that? Oh, I know, you prefer
> >>to ignore this, right?
> >
> > no i dont ignore that at the heavy elenments
> > the results are much poorer
>
> Present evidence for that assertion, please.
>
>
> > if you deny it you are either a fool or anignorant or a croock
>
> If you assert this, you have to present evidence for it.
>
>
>
>
> So, which electrons you meant?
>
>
>
> > sly!
> >>-----------
> >
> > obviusly you know nothing about it
> > they use triton and deutrons.
>
> Oh my goodness. They use tritium and deuterium, not simply triton
> and deuterons!!!!! *You* know nothing about it!
> <http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.5>
>
> (err, you *do* know that tritium and deuterium are triton
> and deuterons with electrons bound to them, don't you?)
-------------
now i copy for you your lines from just above:
quote:
>If your question was supposed to mean if there are *electrons*
> >>radiated during a hydrogen bomb blast, then the answer would be
> >>yes. Where they come from? From the hydrogen atoms, obviously!
-------------
end of quote:
you saied there 'from hydrogen atoms; ('obviously' !! my assertion)
right??
so what are those hydrogen atoms doing there ??!!
you obfuscat with triton ot tritium while you
entered there Hydrogen atoms !!
what is a bigger mistake??
-------------
------------------
>
>
>
> >>Well, please explain how "many different electrons with different
> >>self frequencies" manage to make the typical bremsstrahlung spectrum.
> >>
> >>Since one does not see any resonance spectra in bremsstrahlung
> >>(notice that I am *not* speaking about the *characteric* spectra
> >>here!), you have no evidence for your assertion that bremsstrahlung is
> >>caused by resonance.
>
> Also ignored.
-----------
since there are many electrons in different energy levels
ie different places and different vibrations
they can prudure a vast number of spectra lines
-----------
>
>
>
> >>>>(Hint, where I am aiming at is: a resonance spectrum looks *totally*
> >>>>different from the bremsstrahlung spectrum)
----------
do you master all th eposibble situations of all alectrons?
say for instance one with 79 electrons?
can you explain any single bremstrahlung line of say a gold atom??
if yes please step foreards.
--------------
> >>>
> >>>-----------
> >>>how do you know how in a n element no 79 electrons
> >>>each one of them behaves and all of them with cross
> >>>mutual interaction effects??
> >>
> >>How do you know that resonating all these electrons would result
> >>in the bremsstrahlung spectrum?
>
> Also ignored.
>
>
> >>Hint: if one does the calculation of how the spectrum looks like
> >>*without* assuming that there is any resonance, the results of the
> >>calculations agree very nicely with the observations.
--------------
show us an example
-----------
> >
> > ---------
> > may be you do it indirectly.
>
> Huh???
>
>
> I notice that you *still* have not supported your claim that
> bremsstrahlung is caused by resonance in *any* way.
-------------
stoping an atom slowly or fast is a violent act!
during such a violent force inducing
and since that there are many electons in a heavy atom
even some of them will go resonance
if you dont understand it
only God can help you (physics teacher)
-----------
>
>
>
>
> >>>>Or tell me what the resonance frequency of the air in this example is.
> >>>>And why the resulting sound spectrum is not a resonance spectrum.
> >>>
> >>>we are speaking about a methaphore
> >>
> >>What is metaphoric about the claim "the sound of break is a rsult [sic]
> >>of resonationg [sic] the air"?
> -----------
anhy sound you hear is due to resonance
got it physics teacher??
the air is creating (or being acted) to create comptression
harmonic waives
take a book of sound scince.(phisics teacher)
--------------
-----------
>
>
>
> >>>yet is it not clear to you that any sound is created by resonance??
> >>
> >>No. In contrast, most sounds are *not* created by resonance.
> >>I.e. the sound created when I hit the keys of my keyboard has nothing
> >>at all to do with resonance.
> >
> > -----------
> > ignorat
>
> That would be you.
>
>
> > it resonated the air!
>
> Utter nonsense. What is the resonance frequency of air, in your
> opinion?
-----------
depends of its volume, pressure etc ignorant theacher.
if you plat for instance a clarinet or a trumpet-
you constantly change the air column inside the instrument
producing different sounds - dofferent resonance situations.
got it physics teacher??
that whant to teach me physics!!!
-----------
-----------
 
 Y.Porat
--------------

Loading