Re: My New Website

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 07/03/04 

Date: 2 Jul 2004 22:32:19 -0700

Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cc39ot$l7n$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Lothar Brendel <l.no.spam.brendel@uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message news:<cc17cm$m61$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
> >
> mbers.
>
> No *scientist* ever said that.
-------------
these were the 'scintists' of those days
today there is actually much more advance
but the uman mind and 'social mechanism' works the same
the same private job interests 'flock behaviour'
etc etc
-----------
>
>
> > got what i mean?
>
> I got that you have no clue of the history of science.
>
>
> > it happense to often in histiry:
> > take for instance the Bohr Model:
> > it was 'the model' the dominant one even calculated and .....
> > turned out to be wrong!! got it ?!
>
> Yes. That's called *science*.
----------
yes much more pretentions in it than real compatibility
to the real picture iow too many unsolved issues.
--------------
>
> Now, do the same with your model. 

----
yes it is a pioneering one i declare it always
have you ever done pioneering scince (beside your Fertz?
just to show you that even your scince is only *partial
and not a complete one and migh lead to wrong conclusions)
iow dont be too confident and too smugg with it !!!)
--------------
--------------
> 
> 
> > so what is hiding behind that phenomena ?????
> 
> Which phenomena?
of 'modern theories' (ans 'sconce') that on a longer run found to bwe wrong ?!
--------------
> 
> 
> > imho
> > the trouble is with *incompltete theiries* unfortunately most of them
> > are that kind!
> 
> How can a theory be incomplete if it describes all the things it
> was built for with an amazing accuracy?
your mistake is in your 'all things' here exactly is whre
the devil lyes!!.
people of 500 years ago could predict the sun rise and ;set'
with a wonderful precition but the complete bottom line 
conclusion that the sun orbits the earth was wrong!!
did you go that ???
one can see the trees very clearly and acurately but not see the forest.
---------------
-----------
> 
> 
> > ie much of it seems to work but there is some 'simple minor' data
> > and facts that are ignored
>  > (in order of not spoiling the jubily)
>  > and later it comes out that all those littel minor ignored fats
>  > are the stow that brack the Camel.
> 
> Give examples of things which QM can not explain and ignores, please.
> --------------
qm cannot describe heavy aTOMS RIGHTLY AND COMPLETELY
as it does for light atoms!!
you are not well enogh aware of it 
and there are a lot of silly excuses for it.
----------------
> 
> > if you are not aware of it -- sory for you.
> > i gave you a little exam[ple to thing about it;
> > the number of atoms per Cm^3 in Al Ar and Au
>  > all of them have a very similar number of atoms per Cm^3
>  > so what ????
> 
> That can be explained by QM, quantitatively, and therefore is
> not ignored.
> 
> 
> > a minor tiny detail that has to be ignored   isnt that??
> 
> No. What on earth makes you think that QM ignores this? It can
> explain, this, *quantitatively*.
> 
> 
> > but how come (quantitatively !!!!!!- in numbers!!)
> > that an atom with 13 electrons and another one with 49 electrns
> > and another one with 79 electrons
> > has such a similar *distance * between their atome in their latice ???
> 
> Quite simple. The heavier atoms have also a nucleus with a higher 
> charge, and therefore the electrons are closer to the nucleus.
> 
> If you want to see the calculation showing this quantitatively,
> you have to understand differential equations, and eigenvalue equations. 
> Do you understand these things?
> 
> 
> > please think abou tit
> 
> I have. QM explains it quantitatively.
> 
> 
> > but not only think 
> > calculate acording to anything you want (but do it with numbers
> > not hand waiving)  and get the results of the expected distance
> > *from that calculations of yourse ie qm or whatever smart theory you got.
> 
> The calculation is quite involved. One can't do it in just a few minutes
> by hand. After all, we are talking about systemss here which consist
> of quite a lot of particles!!! You *do* know that even in *Newtonian
> mechanics*, even the *three-body problem* can't be solved exactly?
-------------
do it not in one minute
do it in one hour one week one month one year
but *do it* for devils sake 
'dont talk shoot'!!!!(as they sayed it in the famous western...)
and do it with numbers!! oir else it is ...... you already know
how it is called.you will never but such 'merchandise' from me
dont you ie without numbers.
(show us the calculations of  atom size with 79 electrons!!!)
--------------
-----------------
 
> 
> >>So, to what numbers can we stick? Which numbers do you provide?
> >>
> >>There are "spiders" with _4_ arms with an angle of 109° between each of 
> >>them. Fine.
> >>
> >>Then we have an arm length a of today a=2.16Å, but that value can change 
> >>every day according to your liking.
> > 
> > -------------
> > actually it seems that both of you are spending much more time on it
> > tha i do it right now 
> 
> Well, you brought it up!
-----------
but no one forced you to respond....
---------
> 
> 
> > (and i thank you for that - no cynicism)
> > anyway Bjoern suggested a number (quote from memory of about 10 minutes ago
> > too lazy to look back.... it was someting between 1.6 - 1.8...
> 
> Could you please *finally* make up your mind which number you want
> to use, and stick to it?
> 
> 
> > A  so lets trry it all of us i welcome that teem work!
> > Bjoern can testify btw that i in my book suggested the number of 1.9 A
> > as an alternative.
> 
> That's still higher than 1.8 A, if you didn't notice.
----------
ok take your 1.8
just to remind you:
in pioneering scince at the beginning we are not 'nit pickers'
or else you cant do pioneering scince/ you can stay with your
parroted digested stuff for the rest of your life.
---------------
--------------
--------------------
> 
> And you still ignore that you get the ratio of the double to the triple
> bond length wrong. "This is pioneering science!" is a rather lame excuse
> for that. No pioneering scientist would present results which deviate
> by 8% from observation *WITHOUT HAVING A GOOD EXPLANATION* for the 
> deviation.
-------------
as a start 8 percent is more than a good start
my scince is done by 'trial and error'
do you think 'your scince was done otherwise????!!!
-------------
> 
> 
> > so if it works better lets go on that number.
> 
> Which one? 1.9 A? 1.8 A? 1.6 A?
lets start with the 1.8 if you are so maticulous character.
-------------
> 
> 
> > and try to advance it
> > there migh tbe needed some new improvements even somer corrective
> > ideas 
> 
> In other words: you might need to make up even more rules out of thin
> air.
----------
i alreay sayed that i have my 'medium orbitals ' in my 'rerserves'
those medium orbitals are as the electron ones
with the quantum characteristic of eithr being complelly
or not being completley ie nothing in between.
--------------
----------------
> 
> 
> > but i am sure we are on the right principle way!!
> 
> You are the only one who is sure of that.
so you have to appreciate my persistance and my being
'a brave fighter' for his beives.... though the heavy cost
he has to pay and never be rewarded for it 
just 'rewarded' with abuse all along his life 
isnt that courages ?? (:-)
-----------
> 
> 
> > ie some basic bond length and not endless numbers
> > that is used in different geometric angles and ways
> 
> Err, *you* keep inventing different angles all the time.
> 
> QM only explains the ones which are actually observed.
--------------
what about predicting *anything* as you pretend?
-------------
> 
> 
> > by ways i mean fo rinstance that in some cases there is only
> > *one arm between two atone* in other cases *two arms*
> > in other 3 arms
> 
> Present evidence for that assertion, please. You could start
> by explaining the *measured* electron densities.
----------
have you ever seen the calculation *and observation* of a heavy atom
say with 79 electrons showing the 78 electron densities???
if yes please shoot
----------------
> 
> 
> > btw another interesting questiuon that occeres to me 
> > why is it a max of 3 arms bond and not more/(on one plan)
> > in my nuc astuctures thwer are even 4 bonds in one plan)!
> 
> So, why don't you draw the obvious conclusion that there is something
> wrong with your model?
-----------
i never sayed that the rules of nucs and atoms aere
all along the same
why do *you* jump into conclusions that i didnt
yet you scceeded to obfuscate my important question
is ther electron connections with more than 3 in one plan??
--------------
> 
> 
> 
>  
> >>That obviously doesn't work for H_2, since its bond length is 0.74Å < 1.44Å.
> >>
> >>It doesn't work for Carbon (i.e. C_2), about which the discussion 
> >>started, either, since its bond length is 1.24Å < 1.44Å.
-----------
very nice
if you take your 1.8 A
amking sory of a V shape
with the two hydrogens at the 'upper edges' of that V
and the side length of that V is your 1.8 A 
what will be the angle of that V while the distance
between the trwo upper edges id 0.74 ???
just to give you the way i see it .....
ie how you can solve and explain many distance datas
with one electron bond length.in that case
the lenght iof that V 'leg'
------------------
and again to remind my principle:
th econnestion of electron edges is not done on the shrtest
line between the atoms!
-----------------------
> 
> All ignored.
> 
> 
>  
> > not yet so soon i simply didnt invest the proper time for it.
> 
> Well, what about your picture on page 94?
what about it??
it is an Auticad based strructyre 3d with 3 projections 
of the same thing
based of the exagone that you see in page 96
---------------------
> 
> 
> > the sider or crab is just a memory aid (and you realise the fact
> > you remember it that it is an efficient memory aid!
> > a sider has its legs at his side
> > my atom has its *working arms* at his front and back only !!!
> > no more than 4 at each direction
> > my atom is from fluorine upwards - a sort of a rectaggular pipe
> 
> Octogonal pipe, may I remind you...
-----------
thank you  anyway i guess i am the last man in this universe
that you have to remind it to him !!(;-)
i just try to be more simple not to entangle it 
unneccessarily  ie just to concentrate on the 
main point of it
anyway good for you that you remember it !
--------
> 
> 
> > that becomes bigger and bigger with atom wight actually
> > built of quartets of alpha rectangular sections connected in 
> > linear succesion (if you wantr methaphorically the way surage pipe
> > sections are connected linearily (quite a smelly methaphore isnt it?(:-)
> 
> Please explain the measured charge distribution in nuclei based on
> your model.
------------------
words words words
-----------
> 
> 
> > but the result of it is that onlt the atoms at the edges of those
> > structres are working all th einner ones are eithr lost during
> > connection or inactive fro some reasons
> > so we get similar properties fo rheavy and light atoms
> > becuase of similar geometric structre.
> > and Al is similar to Ag and that to Au
> 
> Nevertheless, Ag and Au are much *bigger* structures than Al
> in your model - so why should they have the same number of atoms
> per volume???
-------------
common dont sjame youself in front of me (bad ENGLISH  sorry)
just to remind you that i know well that the nuc
altogether is very small vwery very small compaired
to the electon orbitals right ???.....
the figures that you see might misslead
but i always stress that it is 'not in scale- not proportional
remember??
--------------
> 
> 
> > and that sth epoint were i was beave enough to make the rebellion 
> > against it and find something else.
> 
> You keep ignoring the experimental evidence of at least 100 years.
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> >>>a single bond is typical to week structures
> >>>like gas molecules
> >>
> >>The bonds in diamond _are_ single bonds. But we must be careful since 
> >>your "single bond", which I will call YP-single bond, is different from 
> >>what is typically meant by this term.
> > 
> > ----
> > it is not a single bond it is 4 fold bond of 4 hinge arms that 
> > became 'out of hinge ' because of the altogether geometric situation.
> 
> Err, in your book, on page 94, you show only single bonds (only
> one electron arm) between the "brick stones". Not 4 bonds.
-----------
so probably we are not talking about the same thing
the structure in that page id\s based on a tetraheder
with 2 legs in one pole and 2 at the opposite pole
btw to you question how i know what is the front [pole
and what the back of my nuc.
it is very simple
if you folowd my model;
it has never the same front face as the back face
it is always differnet
that is one of my interesting findings!!
-----------
now about you 'explanatins'; about minimising energies
give me a break
as long as it is just words words words and no numbers
your words reman words and not scince.
-----------
crackpot
Y
-------------

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My New Website
    ... you see life is not so smooth and simple: ... for instance i found that a single bond like that of say ... what should be the more acurate value for electron bond length ... > ingredients for connecting atoms, then you have to show how to get the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My New Website
    ... The heavier atoms have also a nucleus with a higher ... bond length wrong. ... by explaining the *measured* electron densities. ... >>precisely defined and no hand waving at all. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 4th Type of Chemical Bond
    ... Most likely, the advance won't lead to new materials or technologies: The molecules last for about 1/100,000 of a second and can be made only at temperatures a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero. ... Binding two atoms into a molecule is like conceiving a child: There aren't that many ways to do it. ... If the atoms are of the same element, they will share an electron equally, producing a so-called covalent bond. ... If the atoms are of different elements--say sodium and chlorine--then one may hog the shared electron in what's called an ionic bond. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: quation about covalent bond.
    ... A two electron bond for an A-B molecule is quite common. ... > just by one electron that is bridging two neibouring atoms. ... However, those mentioned species are very unstable, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: C14 in diamonds
    ... valid for most of the typical states you find atoms in. ... average speeds of electrons in atoms are not directly ... expectation value of the velocity of the electron in some ... of distance divided by time. ...
    (talk.origins)