Re: Isotope decay chains

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: 7 Feb 2005 09:34:59 -0800

Angelo wrote:
> Y.Porat wrote:
> > Angelo wrote:
> > > Y.Porat wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > > seen from those charts and a textbook.
> > > Then you concluded that your prediction was
> > > verified.
> > -------------------
> > oh now i see what imho you didnt notice:
> > a prediction or a verification is not in bringing asomething
> > tha tnothing of it exists!!!
>
> I never said so. You saw wrong about my noticing.
-------------
i hope you realise that no one before did that prediction
now about how much it is verfied we will see.
>
> > in many cases it is :
> > take one data and another and another and COMBINE them
> > to something that no one before did !!!
> > in too many cases the 'golden egg' is just in front of everybody
> > but
> > no one sees it
> > i will givwe you somwething not sure scintific but relevant to the
> > above
> > from history just a little sory:
> > > he knew from others that the planet is a spheere etc etc
> *
> > and not least- making the right conclusions.
>
> And those 40 lines (or so) to explain the obvious?

glad that the Coulom(us) story i sobvious to you
btw it is a fscinatig srory to anyone why knows much detailes about it.
--------------------
>
> > no one before me claimes that pt cannot be the mother
> > of the main body of Gold right?
> > than you brought known data that there is Pt 179
> > and even suggested a 'reasonable posibility' that this is
> > the mother of Gold
> > now since it didnt make sense to me looking on my model
> > it was only me that could objest your suggestion
> > and than i invested some not to much effort to try and refute
> > your claim
>
> Err, not ''claim'', only a possible suggestion. You may
> reread and see about this.

ok thtas a nice and a constructive cooperation
(that migh tget into history while you take a part in it ...(:-)
not intriguing enough for you ???
---------------

>
> > i was puting before myself your scenario and sayed to myself
> > lets see if it fits all the known data about Pt and Gold
> > and .....
> > found that .... it does not fit all the known data
> > ie in this caase Pt 179 is vary rare nearly zero
> > its life time is very short so you cant say lers wait another
> > say thosand years ans see if it will produce more Gold
> > and another known data was that gold is much more abundant then
> > 179 Pt so ???
>
> That is rather obscure to me. In a decay chain
> involving a number of nuclides there may be
> be one or more short lived nuclides. Instead,
> that decay chain may require some 10 times
> the half-life of the longest lived nuclide comprised
> in it, in order to come to an end (practically).
---------------------
practically ? (:-)
dont you realise that what you suggested is a speculation??
we have to stick as much as posible to the existing data
once you insert posibilities from your immagination
it has less posibility to be convincing. *practically*
if you suggest another scenario it must have at least
'the taile of the cat' in your hands.
---------------
>
> > the last one cannot be the source of Gold
> > so now the only posible scenario that you could offer
> > was refuted
> > and morover no one that folowed that discussion
> > (and you can be sure it is not just me and you0
> > no one coud bring another alternative scenario that will
> > show how paltinum can be transformed to gold
> > and fit to the facts of abundancy of gold in our crest of globe.
> > iow it is not just to show a posible process
> > thjere is still the problem of abundancy of 'how much'
> > of each of the ingrediants is available!1
> > hope i made it a bit cleare
> > and actually toooo long (:-)
>
> You seem to believe that ''likeliness'' and ''sureness''
> have equal meanings in physics: the former is quite
> irrelevant.
i have to remind you that modern physics is based
on probability!!(thats nearly alli know about modern physics (:-))
so our struggle is to get the *best**probability*
the more probable it is the more it has to be considered.
--------------
>
> > 2 i then bring another prediction that no one before did ie
> > tp say that a much more viable scenario acording to my model
> > is to to find a common jistory between Gold and .... Hg
> > though Hg is a liquid
> > it is only my model tha can say:
> > from Gold- one step to the 'left' of its position' - not possible
> > yet one step to the 'right' - is possible!!
> > so please do not make me much smaller than i am ! (:-)
> > ie dont underestimate the step i did .
>
> Please don't think that the questions I bring about
> your model mask in any way an intention (by me)
> to underestimate, nor deride you. I'm only asking
> to get an idea of your model, and possibly about
> its soundness, nothing personal.
no not at all
you behave very friendly !!!
and cooperativly and a great help to me !!
-----------
>
> > ----------------
>
> [snip older stuff]
>
> > > Sorry to say this, but the above is not an answer to my
> > > questions. BTW, which other properties, besides those I
> > > pointed out, just to let me understand?
> > ----------
> > dat alike chemical valence spectrum specific weight etc etc.
> > -----------
>
> I'm quite sure those data are (practically) the same of
> natural Gold. I see you think otherwise.

yes i think otherwise because you have no actual base
to prove that that Pt that became Gold is much more than
just the same name the same numkber of protons.
 I told it can
> positively ascertained with a costly experiment I could
> devise, which can distinguish if they are two (different),
> or one (the same).
----------
yes i supose a very costly experiments
but still imho no need for it because you forgot the main
conclusion we did by simple gathering of data
that puts another scenario as zero likely.
ie the amount of 179Pt and its very short life time.
itas reareness
btw a question: how at all that 179 Pt is acheivede
is it by any chanxce only in artificial labouratory
procecess??
--------------
>
> [snip older stuff]
>
> > ---
> > exactly thats why my life in that case is simpler
> > supose that there were many isotops of pt and many isotops of Gold
> > it could complicate the issue to the imjposible !!
>
> Ok.>
iow the less (*realistic*) posibilities there is
the simpler the verification is .
and i think this is the situation in our case!!
-----------
> [snip older stuff]
>
> > angelo
> > if you suport for instance his invention of the FERTZ
> > then just 'step one step forwards and suport it!!
> > the Fertz just if you dont know is :
> > and em wave with ....... listen carefully
> > with one cycle per ...... year...
> > is that your understanding of em waves as well ??
>
> Dear Porat, Maxwell equations say that is plainly
> possible to conceive an EM wave with that frequency,
> and, since Maxwell theory has not (yet) been falsified,
> personally I can' see any reason for refute that concept.
> You are free to do so, but *intellectual* honesty would
> demand having another (unfalsified) theory that negates
> that possibility: don't you agree?
-------------
now Angelo you disapoint me !!
because that belongs imho to the basic understanding the difference
between
mateamthics and physics!!!!!
a physicist should realise that a matemathical equation
has its limits in physics
because it is always just a model of reality!!
too may physicists think that physics is matemathics
and that 'God invented them together'
i doubt it
the roll of the real physicist is to find the limits of
hos matematical eauations by observing physical facts.
and fitting his equations to that
(that is actiually waht is done all along)
now you shold realise that the EM waves are a cration of
microcosm
even the known macroscopic em waves are produces
by the microcosm agents
even radio waves are crated by electon movenet etc etc.
thst movenet must be harmonic and constant and acurately
consistant!!
that consistancy cannot be kept say along one year
of a macro world body
the first (stuipd suggestion() of thre Fertz was actually suggested
by Hymann sugestion the movenmet of our earth around the sun!!!
even he undestood that inorder to sugest such a fantastic thing
bust be based upon some tangible example to he suggested
the movenet of earth around the sun
but that is stupid because diring such movement you have noting
realy constant!! you have the interferance of outer planets
eetc wetc etc so in short
a masterpeace of spookiness.
now Ferernacher went on with his logic (that you so entusuiatically
adopted) that if to stick to maxwels equations
a 'superfertz' is as well posible
now sit firm on your chair and listen what a 'superfertz' is
so
it is a EM wave with .. once cycle per .............
100000 billion years!!
now common Angelo
dont you think that there is a limit to physics stupidity!!!
thisuniverse is about say 14 bil;lions years of age
so would you darwe to talk about 100 billin years??
i bag you to get back to your senses!!
and i could go on with that stupidity but
out of topic.
--------------
> [snip OT personal stuff]
>
> > it is your choice to make your 'heroes' and 'reliable people'
>
> No 'heroes', by my side.
>
> > but whati suggested is tha you will ask him just about the fact
> > that pf and Gold in my model (more than 10 years ago)
> > are obviously different --thats all no need for his personal
> > assesments just sticking to facts as a withness in court.
>
> I reassured you about this in another post in this thread:
> recall my sentence ''nihil timeas'' ?
-------------
?????????
-----------------

>
> [snip older stuff]
>
> > > Let's see. When 197Pt decays to yield 197Au
> > > its 'skeleton', 'spine', 'chest' radically change
> > > to those of 197Au, including the 42 links, which
> > > become 45 ones?
> > no no no just stop[ hear!!
> > what i sayed is
> > trhat pl 179 cannot change its basic skeleton
>
> 197Pt, please, don't copy my typos :-))
>
> > no links etc fo rthat you need as i sayed another 'big bang'!!
> > the beta decay and alike are doing just marginal changes
> > '*at the edges of the structure* ie just 'cosmetic ' changes
> > not in the main skeleton
> > therefore .....
> > pt 179 cannot be the real Gold !!!
> > it migh thave just the sanme number of protons
>
> Err, same number of 'nucleons':
> 197Pt has one less proton than 197Au.
----------
but the alleged created Au must have the same No of protons
as a premptive demand to be called Gold.
--------
>
> > but its 'gutts' arwe very different
> > no way to 'change '42 links of the spine to 45 or vice versa'
> > and now you came to the crux of my claim
> > thats xactly why i sayed that pt179 is no way Gold!1
>
> Err, since Pt and Au are obviously different Elements,
> I think you meant that the product of beta decay of
> 197Pt hasn't the properties of Gold.
----------
exactly !
-----------
>
> > and we started to verify it as above .
>
> I repeat: insufficiently, AFAIK.
nothing betetr done before us !!
-------
>
> > i start to mistype just by being tired....
> > so i will make it shorter
> >
> >
> > > If so, why 196Pt or 198Pt,
> > > which share the same skeleton, spine etc with
> > > 197Pt are incapable to decay at all?
> > > IOW, is radioactivity explained in your model?
>
> Now I leave that text above in the hope you are
> willing to answer the questions.
> BTW, why then Au and Hg should be
> interchangeable, as you say? IOW, isn't there
> a contradiction?
no contradiction
the basic skeleton of Au and Hg is very similar
actually is you take just its skeletons it is identical
the difference is only with minor outer organs (methaphorically)
in this case i have to tell you that that reminds me
my model about the U family all laong Lead
all of them have the same basic skelton the diffeernces
are only in outer 'skin and feathers'
so what is a family of nucs is very obvious in my model
i remind you of
Ar K and Ca that have in my model
a very 'excentric skeleton' that exists only in those elements
and that explainwes acording to me why just those elemets
take part in the :geplogic clock' that is known from
geology!!
and about rediactivity in my midel
just very generally:
it is caused by structural reasons
ie edge aprticles like protons neutrrons
that are losely connected (in most cases caltileverly)
in other cases it is a loose connection even of the keleton
that lose connectionj is vibrating and causing
in some case jsut em radiation in more vigorous vibration
emmiting of particles lioke elctrons alpha particles
(those emitted alpha particles are 8always * located
at the edge of the struxctre and losely connested
(just one connection in most cases it is more than just one
connection per nudleid )
now that was jsut my general obsrvation of radiactive cases
*and * my model.
btw my model explained why a nuc is braking just in a certain
point it is genearly a mechanical weak point
a 'hole in the skeleton' etc if you waht a 'hole in a bone'
etc etc
but still in that case and our mutual discussion
it is too abstarct for you
--------------->
> [snip older stuff]
>
> > i offered that just for instanc so that you could see
> > tha my claim that Pt cannot be the mother of Gold
> > and how it is substabtiated.there
>
> Ok. Likely, I'll have an opportunity to see that.
>
> > -------
> > so i think enough for this article
>
> ---------------
all the best and TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------

Relevant Pages