Re: Isotope decay chains

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: 31 Jan 2005 22:36:23 -0800

Angelo wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > so thank you Angelo
> > yet your posibility of 197Pt to me somehow more abundant in that or
> > other stage
> > of history is ... could we say vey faint and speculative??
>
> Well, I don't know for sure: someone far more expert
> than me in this field may help with your question.
> Another source for 197Au may be 197Hg, through
> Electron Capture. Although I can't easily see other
> (further) decay chains that can lead to 197Au, I can't
> be sure about their non-existence.
>
> > so if we go with the strighforward avalable data
> > 197 Pt is not the mother of the *main body of Gold'
> > if yet
> > do you realise what a goo dhelp[ you were to me ???!!
>
> As I told you, I substantially don't know your model,
> so I'm unaware whether I helped (and how much,
> in this case), or not.
>
> > because if that is the case you helpe dme to start veryfy one of my
> > *unprecenented predictions' !!
> > anyone whyo have my book can realise that this is not just an
> > 'out of the blue' prediction' it is obvious there that the basic
> > skeleton
> > of Platinum is very different from that of Gold iow
>
> But the various isotopes of Pt have all a similar 'skeleton',
> or not, according to your model? Moreover, I couldn't
> understand why 'natural 197Au' should be different wrt
> that coming from 197Pt: the individual protons and
> neutrons in the nucleus are perhaps blocked in an altered
> arrangement which is not that of the ground state?
----------------
it is much more fundamental than just one proton!
and since you dont 'put your finger' on a specific alternative
explanation it is just .. speculations..
while what we did here (with your help!) is much more
concrete at leasr statistical evidence ans as you know
all qm is based on statistics much more than i do!!
---------
>
> > differnt in obvious detales
> > if you donrt believe you can ask those people who got my book
>
> (I don't know which are those people, except possibly,
> IIRC, Bjoern Feurbacher, from what I read in previous
> threads, some months ago)
yes Feuerbacher i sone known onwe to have my book
and you can ask him (i alow ) to explain to you and others
what is there in my book about the difference between
the *nuclear structure* of Pt and Gold
btw just keep in mind that Feuerbacher is a personal enemy of mine!!

it is much more than a difference in a porton
and about your question about othere isotops of Pt
iirc i gave there actually some not just one examples of
different isotps of Pt it was just acidental that i brough
a few examples of it
generally i brough just one representative isotop but in many cases i
brought some of them
iirc it was because i whated to convince myswelf that the structre
i found is not just accidental but somehting more systematic...
and it was ...
now you have another alternative ie
to get my book free from me
because you deserve it somewaht more than others (:-)
and i guess that it will be an unusual experience for you
to see something that you never saw in your life
ie compleley brand new and surprising - revolutionary!!
i fyou like just call my private mail as indicted
at the top of my postes.
--------------------------
>
> > and that is not the only possible prediction
> > ther are there i would say much more meaninful fo r praticl use
> > in present and for future!!
> > so thank you again Aggelo
>
> You are welcome, but please mind that as far as
> QM, QED, QFT are not falsified, I trust them.
--------------
please dont have a mistake:
*i never sayed thast qm is basically wrong*
i sayed it is too abstract to be useful enough
exactly as i sayed about the chrt of isotops brought above
now may be you will realise what is the difference btwee some
'abstract knowledge' ands some much more specific knowlwedge
----------
>
> > may be we stated to do history on live internet
>
> This statement seems to me an exaggerated one.
> You are free to think so (obviously). I, on my side,
> would have expected at least one prediction by you
> that is simultaneously in contrast with the above
> theories, and better described known facts.
> This to be sincere: I hope you won't take it bad.
see above
i am not looking to be in contrast with qm
i waht to fingd some much less abstract knowlwedge
more useful.
the one thing that i am completely against
is the 'virtual particles' bosons etc
and i explained many times why!!
oh yes another opposition of mine is the
***interpretations of qm ***
fo rexample that the nuc is a sort of a sphere!
ther is nothiong in those abstract eqouations that demand
unequivocally that all the nucs should be spherical
it is just filling in of private immaginations and
private interpretations of some people.
----------
>
> > ps other peole as swell are invited to veryfy or disprove my above
> > claim
>
> Ok, no problem for me. Anyway, do you think
> that claim so strong to be proved? I mean, we
> all know that Pt and Au have different physical
> and chemical properties. So, what else would entail
> your prediction? IMHO, you should provide a more
> precise differentiating feature, don't you think so?
> ----------
my assertin i snot on the chemical difference
my assertion was on the nuclear propwerties
and the fact that pt and Gold are different
ie you can never get gold fromplatimun *even though
that they are immediate neighbours i snot
a trivial prediction to do!!
iof you add to it waht is given in my book it is even much less
trivial it is revolutionary meaning.
and that is not the only case in which i have an unique
unprecedented explanation.
> > another ps
> > Angelo you still didnt answer me about your triton Alpha question
> > that you presented
> > my question was
> > what is your question there and
> > is it unsolved otherwise?
>
> It is solved. The formed (H-He)^+ bond (from H-T)
> is sufficiently strong to resist breaking (in those
> described conditions) notwithstanding the multiple
> excitations undergone after T decay to 3He. The
> reverse is true for (H3C-He)^+ bond (from H3C-T).
>
> I simply wanted to know if that behavior fits in
> your model, or not. IOW, it was say a sort of
> probe, a possible test which I offered to you
> (don't know if appropriate).
> Sorry: forgot to say that.
ok
triton Helium etc is 'small cash' in my model
as you saw i did what no one ever did
all laong the periodic table.
---------------
best regards
Y.Porat
---------------------

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Isotope decay chains
    ... > a prediction) that Gold cannot in any way be ... supose that there were many isotops of pt and many isotops of Gold ... >> if Pt say have 42 links in its spine ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Isotope decay chains
    ... > OTOH, if I helped, I did it by using those 'charts' ... Gold cannot be created from Pt ???!!! ... now you have another prediction that this chart can never do: ... >> and about your question about othere isotops of Pt ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Isotope decay chains
    ... > 'out of the blue' prediction' it is obvious there that the basic ... > of Platinum is very different from that of Gold iow ... > Angelo you still didnt answer me about your triton Alpha question ... The formed ^+ bond ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Isotope decay chains
    ... Angelo wrote: ... >> of the main body of Gold right? ... > Err, not ''claim'', only a possible suggestion. ... > have equal meanings in physics: ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Isotope decay chains
    ... because if that is the case you helpe dme to start veryfy one of my ... 'out of the blue' prediction' it is obvious there that the basic ... may be we stated to do history on live internet ... Angelo you still didnt answer me about your triton Alpha question ...
    (sci.physics)