elas

Take a look at what you call feed back; It is not what I would call constructive criticism merely adverse opinion which I will leave the judgement to others. your wasting your time, elas doesn't really consider reality to matter all hat much and just goes away on his own little path. its best just to ignore him. yeah, he'll post some of his crap, disappear for a few weeks and then return spouting the same old rubbish. i'm surprised he hasn't been given his marching orders already. frankly i'm surprised this thread is still open, i'm quite sure this isn't the first he's opened on it and i'm sure a few of the older ones were locked. try sticking to accepted science in the non speculation forums then. some energy is photons. not all of it. same way some dogs are terriers but you wouldn't say all dogs are terriers. yet again you spout wild speculation as if it were a fact known and acepted for thousands of years like 'things fall down' toasty, there is a particular brand of nutjob out there who believe that monatomic gold has magical properties. also, if you atomize gold it will be black and not white. there's a bunch of hooey about the electrons being in a special configuration that changes the shape of the nucleus into a line of nucleons or some other magic shape of the week. the guy who 'invented it' also claims that he can extract 50kg of rare earth metals per tonne of any soil. if there really was 50kg of rare earth metals per tonne of soil then they would not be rare earth metals and they wouldn't even be a tenth the price they are. elas, that has bugger all to do with isotope separation. answer his bloody question instead of skirting it like usual.

If I cannot get a constructive criticism on a science forum what hope do I have on a blog? There two reasons for posting here first the hoped for constructive criticism and secondly to establish a date of publication. As one of my critics it would be nice to know if you are changing your mind or just want to get rid of me! But it is comforting to know your still viewing.

Amendment to previous statements on particle states The difference between Hall electron fractions and atomic element electron fractions is illustrated in the following two graphs. The upper graph is a graph of the taken from Table 7.1 of ‘Composite Fermions’ by Jainendra K. Jain; this shows that for each Landau level the positive and negatives states form pairs and that within each state the average of each pair is the same for all pairs in that state (i.e. constant). The lower graph compares Hall fractions with atomic inner and outer shell field fractions. This illustrates the difference between internal (nuclear) compression and external magnetic field (FQHE) compression. It also shows that all atomic shell electrons are in the 2CF state (constant = ½). The shells are numbered, note that shell 1 is missing (because electrons form the nuclear shell and are therefore not part of the electron shell field) which leads to the possibility that the integer(1) on the extreme left in the upper graph is probably the FQHE nuclear electron. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPS Graphs A and B have been combined to better illustrate the connection between atomic shell electrons and 2CF electrons. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThis far I have relied on the work of Jain published in2007. A trawl of arXiv revealed a paper by H Heiselberg also published in 2007 (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0510/0510688v2.pdf) this allows the following comments: Jain (Table 7.1) and the proposed atomic fraction table both contain integer '1', but Heiselberg's table does not contain a value of '1'; this can be attributed to the different experimental methods; Heiselberg uses Mott insulator states, but Jain uses 'atoms' containing only electrons, the nucleus consisting of a single electron i.e. '1'. 1He has a single electron that is bonded with a proton to form a meson, the electron is not a true atomic shell electron therefore it does not have an atomic shell fraction, but 1He does have the integer '1' for a single electron as shown in the atomic fraction table. The advantage of Heiselberg's work lies in the discovery of fractions with an even denominators (1/2, 3/8, 3/4 and 5/8) all of which are also found in the proposed atomic structure.

The following graphs are for comparison with Fig2.5 Of Composite Fermions by Jainendra K. Jain. to illustrate that within atomic structures the Hall effect is observed in the outer field while the Quantum Hall effect is observed in the inner fields. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn the last entry on: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32854&page=2 In reply to Swansont's rejection of my proposal on the grounds that it was nothing more the numeracy I listed the fractions not found by FQHE. It should be noted that these fractions can be found in atomic structure together with the fractions found by FQHE. That is to say that 'balanced field' atomic structure provides details of fermion structure (proton/electron) to a greater degree of accuracy than that provided by FQHE on composite fermions. Whereas FQHE produces approximate fractions, the balanced field approach produces exact fractions (that on this forum, have been converted to approximate fractions for comparison with FQHE fractions).

As the following quotes show, any theory that explains the cause is an improvement on current theory. Explaining the cause converts current philosophy into a science. Extract from “The Elegant Universe”. Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science). Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory. This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote: "They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess". Beyond measure Jim Baggott (2003) “The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”. The Ideas of Particle Physics Guy D.Coughlan James E. Dodd Ben M. Gripaios (2006) Moreover, recent experiments in neutrino physics cannot be explained within the Standard Model, showing beyond doubt that there must be a theory beyond the Standard Model and that the Standard Model itself is only an approximation (albeit a very good one) to the true theory.

Re: Surely this is a case of QT 'point like' and classical 'volume'. Put a (point like) stone on a piece of string and drop it in a pool of water, classicist observe the wave that expands in all directions away from the stone, but Quantum theorist continue to observe the stone and see that when the stone is removed the water fills the space previously occupied by the stone and therefore quantum theorist observe ‘wave collapse’. That is to say the views of QT and classicist are not incompatible; both are correct but different observations of the same photon wave action. The implication being that the observer cannot observe both the stationary point wave action and the moving wave action at the same time.

It seems to me that experts regard this matter in two different ways, some say that mass 'converts' into energy, and vice versa (i.e. two different interchangeable entities); others (including Einstein) say that mass and energy are the 'same thing' that is to mean two different ways of measuring one entity. David Bodanis (E=Mc^2) gives a lengthy description of nuclear fission in which he appears to switch between the two explanations with some hesitation caused (I suggest) by an unwillingness to accept the degree to which a particle can expand. The difference seems to arise from the two different approaches to the interpretation of observed actions; should it be Quantum interpretation with its 'point like' particles; or should it be classical interpretation where particles have volume. One simple example of the confusion (at least amongst we amateurs!) that can arise lies in the dismissal of 'ether theories' on the grounds that no ether theory can explain away the resistance caused by friction. But QT predicts a minimum energy level throughout infinity, and as E=Mc^2; it is therefore, using Einstein's interpretation, an ether theory. My own proposal is based on the fact that the ether does not need to move hence there is no material friction; the (vacuum) force field moves reshaping the ether as it does so. There is no friction between vacuum force fields, but the speed of force fields are determined by the density of the ether (thereby determining the speed of light). Note that I am not saying that the ether does not move; only that it is not necessary for it to move under all circumstances. In modern times as Lee Smolin makes clear in the introduction to 'The Trouble With Physics', 'experts' have a financial stake in their work and a personal reputation to defend, therefore they tend to defend the status quo rather than keep an open mind. Lower order professionals know that if they want to retain their academic post, they must support their superiors, at least until they get to the top; so we end up waiting for changes at the top in order for major changes to theories. Meanwhile we amateurs can fire arrows at Achilles heel to our hearts content!

Thanks, should have checked my maths instead of waiting for you to return, elas

Is it possible that within a Black Hole mass has converted to energy that is to say that we observe the effect of the Black Hole energy value (not the Effect of the Black Hole in mass values). Therefore in the Schwarzschild radius equation m should be replaced with E. This would mean that the Schwarzschild radius equation for mass would be m=r/2G (r=2Gm).

As this debate seems to have run its course, I have decided to finish by tabulating the fractions and states in order of fractional values. Predictions are shown in red type. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedCols.A,C and E refer to the inner electron of the Outer half of the electron field. Cols. B, D and F refer to the outer electron of the inner half of the electron field. That is to say that the table gives the data for pairs of electrons with one of each pair on either side of the line that divides the electron shells into two halves.

Corrected table below; with apologies.

A sound critic of the current model is given on: http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/scerri/pdf/How_Good_is.pdf There are no exceptions in the proposed model in fact Table 2 shows that the proposed model has considerably greater accuracy than the current model. The problems with QT are explained ib detail by Lee Smolin in The trouble with physics. I am not proposing a replacement for QT, but I believe QT should be underpinned with an explanation of particle and atomic structure and that only those (QT) predictions that can be contained or developed within or from the physical structure should be permitted. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFractional balance of Inner and outer fields states Atoms of each element have two fractions (inner and outer), arranging the fractions in order highest to lowest produces Tables 3a and 3b, this allows the prediction of the state of all the 1/2 fractions electron states as either 2CF1(outer field states) or 2CF-1(inner field states). There are three cases that need explaining. 11Na and 22Ti are not balanced, but are 1/2 and 4/9 this is probably due to the ‘approximation’ values of experimental fractions. The fractions of 3Li are reversed due to the filling of the nuclear shell. Table 3a Table 3b Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedPerhaps 3Li needs a more detailed explanation: 3Li states are in the reverse order to all other particle states because it is the only atom of any element that has more electrons in its inner field than in its outer field. That is to say that electron state is determined by the ratio of electrons (inner/outer fields) and not by field position itself (i.e. inner or outer).

Sorry, very slow on the uptake, must be the season.

Now show how the pairing of the ground state of shell electrons can be deduced from the table you have illustrated. The table you have displayed first appeared in 1915, in view of all that has been discovered since 1915 surely it is due for updating or even replacement?

Fission, Fractions and Ground States In Fig.1 the explanation given by current teaching is shown (in graph form) by the dark green and red lines; these divide the graph into two sections at 26Fe. The proposed model takes the difference between the number of protons (red) and the number of neutrons (dark green) and compares the result (light green) with the inner and outer field electron numbers (light and dark blue respectively. This divides the Table of elements into three main sections (fission release, fission absorb and radioactive). Disregarding the two elements with only nuclear electrons (1st shell), the remaining ‘Fission release’ elements divide into three equal sub-sections of eight elements each (2nd and 3rd shells and first eight of fourth shell). The centre is occupied by three ‘fission absorb’ groups (remainder of 4th shell plus5th and 6th shells) where the number of unpaired neutrons is less than the number of outer field electrons. Finally on the right are the radioactive elements (7th shell) where the number of neutrons is roughly equal to the number of electrons in the outer electron field; just as the number of protons and neutrons are roughly equal in ‘release’ section. Thus it can be seen that even at this most basic stage, the proposed model holds out the prospect of a more detailed explanation than does the current model. Fig.2 shows what happens when the neutrons are paired with both protons and electrons, for clarity, the key lines are separated out in Fig.3. This shows, in greater clarity than Fig.1; that it is the neutrons that separate the ‘release’ and ‘radioactive’ sections from the ‘absorb’ section. Between C and D the dashed red line represents the field centre. Between E and F the dashed red line represents the interaction of neutral and charged particles. Finally it will be noted that the outer field electrons are compressed (concentrically) in the same individual manner as in FQHE (i.e. in one plane). This means that it should be possible to find the ‘approximate fractions’ that are found in FQHE. Dividing inner and outer electron numbers by proton numbers produces both the actual and approximate fractions as shown in Fig.4 and the table 1. The odd number shells have lower peaks because one shell is divided between inner and outer fields. Inserting the known ground state for each fraction brings into view the ground state relationship between inner and outer field electrons and allows some predictions to be made; these are highlighted in table 2. Table 1 predicts the actual fractions, but the accuracy means that the real fractions cannot be used to find the 'approximate' electron states. Table 1 Table 2

The question of bonding is one I did not intend to deal with, but the table mentioned might help; if I can find it. e plus p stay together because the linear forces of elasticity of matter and vacuum are equal creating a balanced composite particle field. e plus e and p plus p do not produce a balanced composite field (they have unequal linear force and anti-force) therefore they are free to rebound or be 'repulsed' by the difference in force, the force between the like particles being different to the external force arising from the presence of external particles (Neuton's corpuscular universe). The terms 'attract' and 'repulse' are misleading, particle movement is determined by differences in density of particles (partial vacuum fields); there is no need to continue with the use of ill defined force names (i.e. force names that can only be defined by their action and not by the cause of the action). The pursuit of simplicity is acheived by strict adherence to the Law of Economy.

Look again at the photon diagram and consider possible decay states: 1) no change 2) electron and positive neutrino 3) positron and negative neutrino 4) electron and positron 5) no other change is possible the current model suported by experimement, gives us (1) to (4) it does not give us (5) One of the tables I have been told to 'falsify' is the table that shows that mr = G/2 that is to say that gravity (vacuum) is the fundamental force, electromagnetism etc are names we give to actions arising from different compaction states of both matter and vacuum field (gravity). The actions of all force carriers is determined by the difference in density of partial vacuum fields, not just differences in the density of matter. new readers should also read: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=533307#post533307

Can you describe hydrogen atom and bonding of 2xH into H2 molecule more closely? Probably not, but I did a Table on bonding which I will try and find. Do electrons in your theory follow classical trajectories? Do you have any equations to describe what are electrons and protons actually doing, who is attracting who with what force, what is their velocity and such? Quantum theory gives us the mathematics of actions, I cannot make any improvement on those, but QT does not tell us how or why. My aim is to explain particle structure so that the particle described can be used to explain how or why. QT is highly complex; structure however, is as Newton wrote “a thing of great simplicity” and the pursuit of simplicity is just about within the scope of my abilities!

This is an outline of what I am trying to achieve. At present I am trying to do the falsifications mentioned by the administrators and in addition, bring the various submissions together in one article. This quick reply is just that, not a complete work in itself. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light and scroll down to electromagnetic theory where the diagram describes a light wave as extending from wave peak to wave peak; this I think is an incorrect assumption. I view the photon as shown fig.aa36 below. This shows the electron and positron in there bosonic state. That is to say that in a partial vacuum field (particle) the vacuum field has collapsed into a Zero Point (represented by a black dot, but in reality dimensionless) leaving the positron and electron matter in its wave form. In this form it passes through other particles distorting the vacuum fields of other particles as they pass through (red wave). We observe the red wave as colour and measure the striking force (energy) of the matter wave; hence the energy is always twice the elementary particle energy, but the colour varies according to the element occupied at any give instant. When passing through gravitons (particles weaker than positrons and electrons) photons retain the wave length of the last element with which they interacted. In a submission on the work of Malcolm H McGregor (The Enigmatic Electron) I converted the partial vacuum field of an elementary particle into its logarithmic form to show how the various radii given for the electron compare to measurements along the radius to different points of the partial vacuum field (McGregor’s diagram is given in logarithmic form). Taken together with my Table of Elements what is being developed is a proposal for an explanation of the structure of particles and atoms using only vacuum and matter. Electricity, electromagnetism, gravity, strong force and weak force apply to the actions of different states of a partial vacuum field (i.e. single elementary particle).

In my opinion you have got it exactly right, but I am constantly accused of being anti-QT when actually QT is about the mathematical prediction of actions and my proposals are about the mathematical structure of things; the two should be complementary. Will get down to a longer reply today.

The Elements by John Emsley. Oxford University Press, Third edition ISBN 0 19 855818 X (Pbk) The entry reads: 'Number of isotopes (including nuclear isomers)'. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I admit to having a blind spot when it comes to 'falsification'. I am hoping that during the Christmas holiday I will get some personal tuition, I can see what is required, but I do not seem to be able to actually apply it to my work. Unfortunately most of my educated contacts are in various branches of Socialology with scant use of 'falsification' particularly in respect to mathematics or physics. My physics contact is a rare visitor from far afield. Hopefully by mid-January I shall be able to show some improvement.

Sha31 I am currently deep into: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38674 where there is much work still to be done and I hope to keep the ball rolling. There is also much I would like to say in response to your reply, but it will be a few days before I can write at length. Meanwhile a comment on the opening post. I stated in the course of a different debate that the way physicists use minus quantities such as negative charge and negative mass is incorrect. That is to say that (as in all other professions) physicists should regard such negative terms as implying that something real is missing and not that the minus quantity itself is a reality. This is illustrated above in graph form where I show how two positive quantities interact to produce a single negative quantity and a single positive quantity. Comparison of 'A and B' with 'C and D' shows how to arrive at the missing mass. Comparison of 'A and C' with 'B and D' shows the origin of particle and anti-particle and of positive and negative charge. Note that the balanced field structure used to illustrate this proposition is the same as the balanced field structure used to define electron shell structure on the page referred to above. Not mentioned on either page is the link with wavelength and TQHE, but I will deal with these as soon as I can write at length, elas

I take that to mean you require a revised graph (A Genius might do it in thirty seconds, molecules need 14 minutes) I note that the number of isotopes listed in the CRC Handbook is greater than the number given in Emsley, I do not know why, and of course, there is a lot yet to be discovered in the higher Transuranic elements region above atomic number 104.

My apologies, the labelling is the same as for the opening graph at the top of page 1. The left hand scale is also the number of isotopes given by Emsley. I do not want to repeat the graph with labels, but if there is a method of replacing the existing graph I will do so.

I have not said that electrons do; shortly after the submission to this forum, on the forum below; I submitted an explanation using isotopes: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=532291#post532291 In both cases I used the same field structure that I have used throughout all my submissions, nature repeats Newton's field structure over and over again in all structures; fundamental particle, composite particle, atoms, planetary systems and even black holes. (My excitement is because the discovery of element 122 allows me to include atomic structure in this statement for the very first time). Note that using shell structure lead me to predict that the largest atomic structure would be 137 or 138, using isotopes the prediction is 136. Given that we are entering into the comparatively new field of transuranic elements these are a reasonably close predictions.