Re: nuclear shell model periodic table
From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 10/08/04
- Next message: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: jd: "Re: A basic question about circular motion and polar coordinates"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: nuclear shell model periodic table"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: nuclear shell model periodic table"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: nuclear shell model periodic table"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 8 Oct 2004 01:11:35 -0700
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ck3hdh$q9g$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<ck0m53$9p3$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >
> >>Y.Porat wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<cjtu8k$l79$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Y.Porat wrote:
> > > --------------------
> > i know thwy know nothing about say the geometric structure
> > of the nuc
>
> As said elsewhere: depends on what exactly you mean by "geometric
> structure". If you mean that each nucleon has its well-defined place in
> the nucleus, then you are wrong, plain and simple.
-----------
cheap lier!!
anyone who saw my model and book and is a decent scintist
will never say such a thing!!!
---------------------
>
> BTW: this has nothing to do with the question if they use extrapolation
> or not. Obfuscation noted.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>>>Well, that's not what happened with the nuclear shell model. Thanks for
> >>>>showing yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.
> >>>>--------------
> >>>
> >>>parrot
> >>
> >>I simply tell you the facts...
> >
> > -----------
> > you know well that the shell model is far fome being something
> > serious
>
> No, I don't know anything like that, because this is simply not true.
> Since when are Nobel prizes awarded for things which are "far from
> being serious"?
---------------
No0bel prisers are for the existing knowlwge and paradigma
Nils Bhore also go the Nobel... and his 'solar model is nonsense
ie there are sometimes accidental partial successes.
-------------
--------------
> >
> > > compaired to to waht should be known
>
> Again:
> why should anyone pay attention to what you think what should be
> known?
-------------
because not all people are FERTZ inventors like you
-------------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >>Modern nuclear physics is in no way "stuck in the mud".
> >
> > -----------
> > for parrots
>
> No, for scientists.
>
>
> >>I simply tell you the facts...
> >
> > the facts of whom??
>
> Facts don't belong to anyone. They simply are.
> ---------------
you atribute to youself much more than you deserve
-----------------
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > > Fertz inventor
>
> I notice that you did not bother to present any arguments for your
> assertion that it is the same.
>
> Only again mentioned the "fertz". How often do I need to tell you that
> you make only yourself look silly by your constant harping on this?
> --------------
you even dont realise how silly you are
btw it is very good for me that you stick persiatantly to your FRETZ!!...
your dishonest stuborness is good for presenting you
in the right lihgt.
----------------
> >
> > your scattering evidence is your only supid explanation to the scattering
> > that is good for kindergarden models. were you belong
> > beside the croock club that you belong as well
>
> If you can explain the scattering data *quantitatively* with your model,
> feel free to present your calculations. Hint: standard physics can do this.
>
> As long as you can't do that, rambling against this evidence only makes
> you look silly, dishonest, and like a crackpot.
-------------
i say that it is a beginning of an explanation
an alternative one
so where is the dishonesty ?? croock
anyone that known some statics and dymnam,ics will unserstand
that my suggestion can work may be much better than your
stupid shell model of electrons with the lanthanoid problem
that you even dont undersyand that it is a problem!!
--------------
>
> I told you already. Try to read it again, and understand it this time.
> And if you want to have more details than I can give in a newsgroup
> post, try actually looking into a book on nuclear physics.
>-------------
hanwaiver croock
---------------
>
> > I told you already. Try to read it again, and understand it this time.
> And if you want to have more details than I can give in a newsgroup
> post, try actually looking into a book on nuclear physics.
there is nothing about the geometric structre of the nuc
the only 'sound ' model
is the 'dropp model' wich is for retarded cheldren like you
---------------
> >
>
> > the nuc has its exact unequivocal structure in whch each proton and neutron
> > are located
>
> Unsupported assertion which goes not only against the direct evidence,
> but also against established QM like the HUP.
so bring the evidence that contradict my asserion
that the nuc has a distinct geometric strructure!!
-----------
>
> >
> > got it physics imbecil??
>
> I got that you have as usual not the faintest clue what you are talking
> about.
>
>
> > my anger at you is much than on others becaus eyou saw my model
> > and your chaeting is unforgivable
>
> Hint: I am in no way cheating.
>
>
> > only Joseph Geobeless could behave like that !!
>
> 2240 points.
for little Goebeless
--------------
> >>>>
> >>>>I already told you several times why the nuclear model you present in
> >>>>your book proves nothing: because you use lots of free parameters and
> >>>>arbitrary rules. Force-fitting. Shoe-horning.
> >>>>
> >>>>--------------
> >>>
> >>>Hi little nasy croock lier - Joseph Goebeless!!
> >>
> >>I think we are at 2200 points now.
> >
> > the points are for you
>
> Hint: I never called you a Nazi or Goebbles. And these 2200 points (2280
> points) were only for you calling me names like that.
>
> So, thanks for demonstrating yet again that you are completely unable
> to think logically.
-------------
you are a cheap lier
---------------
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
> >>>it cant be but fiddling
> >>
> > >
> > ----------
> > you try to fing rescue hanging on words call it a square
> > a rubrica whaever you like
>
> Sorry, but as long as you use wrong words, how am I supposed to figure
> out what you mean?
>
>
> > and you knowe well croock what i mean just trying to obfuscate
> > the question and problem you got !1
>
> No, I do *not* know what you mean!!!
>
>
>
> >>They are in the same *group* of the periodic table. And standard QM
> >>*predicts* that. No fiddling at all involved there.
> >
> > >
> >>>suddenly out of the blue
> >>>while all the other elements have each its palce
> >>
> >>I have no clue at all what you mean here. You seem to have some severe
> >>misunderstandings about the periodic table.
> >
> > croock who has misunderstanding of it ??
> > each column left to the other has a differnet number of outer
> > electrons
>
> Yes. Also each column right to the other.
yess right in the Latinic system ok
>
>
> > and each of them is one z number up
>
> Each column???
>
>
> > now with the lanthanoids suddely
> > all the upgoing z elements are 'stuck' the the same number of outer
> > electron
>
> Where did you get that totally nonsensical idea from???
>
> Each lanthanoid has a *different* number of outer electrons!!!
but they are all in the same column!!!
-------------
>
> Do you perhaps count only the electrons in the outer s orbitals as
> "outer electrons" here, and ignore the electrons in the f orbitals?
> (granted, they lie a bit more inside, but nevertheless they still *are*
> "outer electrons"!)
----------
that is exactly the fiddeling !!
got it parrot??
dont you see that it is fitting the electrons 'shells'
to the experimental data??
>
>
> > ie something like a Dozen ( i dont bother now to look how many of them are)
>
> 14. Hint: The number of electrons in a subshell is 2*(2*l+1), with
> l = 0, 1, 3, 3, ... These are all predictions of QM, and all this is
> very nicely seen in the periodic table (groups of 2, 6, 10, 14, ...)
> ----------
it is not predictions croock
it is fiddling to the known experimantal data
-------------
>
>
> > are stuck they are not moveng to the 'left' of the table
>
> Moving to the left???????????????????
ok for you to the right
-----------
>
>
>
> > ie all of them have say 4 electrons in the outer shell
> > (i dont bother to look now if it is 4 or 3 or 5 but the same number
> > in outer shell)
>
> If you mean the electrons in the outer s orbitals: there are 2.
so why all of then only 2 ??
and all the abundant ones are stuffed inside??
dont you see that this is fiddeling??? croock?
-----------------
>
>
> > it means that all the additional electrons that are added
> > sequently one after the other
> > are not added at the outer shell
> > but are stuffed inside the inner shells
> > go it morn and lier ???
>
> *Perhaps* you refer here to the fact that the electrons in the outer s
> orbitals are, in a sense, farther outside than the electrons in the
> f orbitals. So one *could* say that the electrons are only added to the
> inner orbitals.
>
> *If* you mean that: that is indeed explained by QM. Why don't you
> *finally* try actually reading a *book* about this?
--------------
it is explained !! not predicted!1
now lpease bring those 'explanations and we will test it !1
dont hand waive !! and chest drummm on others chests
ps
two israeli scintists from the Israely (inferriour education)
institute of thechnology of Israel)
Got the Nobel Prize 2004 for chemistry!
therir findings btw are not abstarct mumbling
it leads directly to paractical uses of finding remedies
to deceases like Cancer etc.
they are not even graduates of Hedelberg....
---------------
--------------
Y.Porat
---------------
>
- Next message: Ilja Schmelzer: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: jd: "Re: A basic question about circular motion and polar coordinates"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: nuclear shell model periodic table"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: nuclear shell model periodic table"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: nuclear shell model periodic table"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
