Re: New Cubic Atomic Model explains electron energy levels and bonding

From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 02/11/05 

Date: 11 Feb 2005 06:52:59 -0800

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> franklinhu@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Y.Porat wrote:
> > i would like to see the exct folowing structure evidence:
> >
> >>2 8 16 32 18 4
> >>or wahtever is the alleged exact figures
> >
> >
> > Porat, let's see if I can provide the experimental evidence that
you
> > are asking for. Now, I'm no fan of electron shell theory. Like you,
> > I had doubts about how the shell theory was supported
experimentally.
> > However, the groupings of electrons by energy level can be read off
> > directly from the ionization data. Now this doesn't mean that the
> > electrons are in the shells described by electron shell theory.
>
> What does, in your opinion, "electron shell theory" mean?
> What is, in your opinion, a "shell" in that theory?
> What does it, in your opinion, mean when one says that
> "an electron is in that shell"?
>
>
> > It just means that the force holding the electrons to the atom fall
> > into specifc repeating energy patterns.
>
> That sentence was rather meaningless babble.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > [1s2] [2s2 2p6] [3s2 3p6 3d10] [4s2 4p6]
> >
> > In this terminology:
> > The first number represents the energy level
> > The second letter represents the shell
>
> Already wrong. It represents the angular momentum
> (of the sub-orbital). At best, you could say that it
> represents the "sub-shell". But even that would only be
> vaguely right.
>
>
> > The third number indicates the number of electrons in the shell.
>
> In the sub-orbital.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Once again, I am no fan of electron shell theory,
>
> Perhaps you should learn it first?
>
> BTW: I know of no actual physicists or chemists who
> even uses the term "shell theory" in his work. I think
> this is just a term used sometimes in popular science
> and maybe in high school.
>
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > I think it is significant that I was able to find a pattern
> > that matched since it is not at all obvious that any pattern would
> > work.
>
> You have many degrees of freedom to work with. After all,
> we are talking about arrangements of cubes in 3D space here.
> There *are* indeed many possibilities to do that.
>
> Please notice that essentially *every* crank has found ways
> to reproduce at least *some* of the data accurately. Porat has
> e.g. reproduced the atomic masses quite accurately (although he
> continues to ignore my argument that the masses of the electrons
> are not negligible - BTW, I fully expect that he will answer this
> with one of his usual incoherent, insane rants...) and has also
> achieved some other (approximately!) accurate descriptions.
> Or take the people from Black Light Power...
-----------

>
> So, reproducing *some* of the data, even if accurate to,
> say, 1%, is not a sign that you are on the right track. *Lots*
> of people have already achieved that - and their models are
> totally different from yours...
>
>
> You would convince people far more if you concentrated first
> on some "key experiments" which led to the development of the
> physics we have today (Rutherford scattering, the double-slit
> experiment, the Stern-Gerlach experiment etc.), and explained
> *those* with *very* good accuracy, *quantitatively*
--------------
since youmenton my name and cheat i will respond
but dont answer mw directly
i wahnt you as far as possible
becuae it is better for my blood pressure........

the man is an expert of hand waving even woth other hands.
--------------
>
>
> > If I couldn't find any pattern to match the ionization data,
> > that would have been a serious problem. But since I did find a
> > suitible pattern, the cubic model passes this critical test.
>
> The test wasn't very critical.
>
>
> > I hope that this is enough proof that you can see with your own
> > eyes, that at least the groupings of the electron shell theory
> > are well supported.
-----------
parrot
pleas egiveus experiental evidence od the electron shell
(or group of subshells of the shell No 4
having 32 electrons in it
no one more no one less!!!!!
-------------
>
> You hope wrong. Porat is ineducable.
what a cheack of a parrot that can understans nothing than
what his parrot teacgers taufgt him
and the only inovation he could produce is the Fretz invention
yes i am ineducable about the Fertz
-----------------
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > Your model indicates that Iron (which is smaller than Kypton)
> > already exhibits the rectangular structure. I do not see how
> > this structure could exhibit the observed ionization pattern.
>
> Rectangular structure? Do you mean his "rectangular tube"?
> Please note that this is actually an octogonal tube, although
> he does not say that anywhere. (and expect yet another incoherent,
> insane rant from Porat in reply to this)
-----------
the ..... i will save the ionsult
he first heared about that 'retangular pipe from my book
and now he is educating mwe about what that tube is ......
it is realy an octahedral tube but wha tthe parrot didnt get is
that what is actualy relevant to thje building of the nuc
is only four sides of that octahedral tube
the magic figure 8 is because .......
that reatangular oipe has listen carefully:
*it ha two poles!! ij each one 4 free edges so together
in both poles 8 connectioons
and the youg crook whats to teach me about it !!!
(he whant to teach the father how to produce children .......)
----------
----------------
>
> [snip]
>
>
> > As a public service, I have posted the material I received from
> > Porat on my web site at:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/franklinhu/Y.Porat-model2.pdf
thank you afranki
anyway i would expect that you ask my permitionbefore publishing it
isnt it so ??
amyway it is not against my interset because i myself would do it
(just the abstraxct that you presented
it is not the whole book or model
btw i would like that Frantz hymann Angelo Mike etc
lately Eric Bazan asked me to show him something
so Eric did you by chnce got it here ??
if yess please let me know

and others would give a glips in it
because generally speaking he had no clue about what i am talking
i have no illution that he will undwerstnd it and see how it
issubstantiated
but just a general idea about what it is ingeneral..
btw franki since you started with it
i would ask your service to enable me to quots that abstract
to anyone i will be interested
can you ddo that service to me ?
TIA
-----------------
>
> Uh oh. He will soon begin to cry about copyright...
 see above that is only an abstract of my book and still he should ask
my permition but i let it go as is
and try to extract the best of the existing data ....
--------------
now about the supid repetativeclaim of Bjoern that i disnt
iclude the electrons mass in my mass calculation!

he probably didn hear about the story about a skecraw that was built
somewhere in wonderland:
in that land people were biliding a scarcrow to fight birds
bu tthan they for got why they built it
got a fright nowing waht it is and thjan declared war
on the scarcrow !!! asa a deavil
--------
first that parrot is inventing 32 electrons in a shell

and then demands from me to prove tha there are 32 electrons there
and even calculate their mass!! in the general mass calculations .

but simes that God does not think so and helps me
and i am doing well withjnot so many electrons!!!

so sory that i succeded in it !!!
anyway may be those elcron mass is already in my binding energy loses
or whasoever
but the bottomline is
it works wondefully including chmistrry verification and
nuclear ones
and some of those unprecedents predictions are starting to
be vwerfied even in this very thread !!!!
-------------
Y.Porat
-----------------------

Relevant Pages