Forms of elementary organic molecules

[vlamir]

I consider, geometry of crystals gives for us strong case to suppose, that atoms have polyhedron’s form (in contrast to current hypothesis, that atoms are composed of ball-nucleons and of shapeless clouds of electronic probability).

At present I research for geometry of hydrogen and carbon atoms.

Exact data about atomic structure of elementary organic molecules must help me in the task solution, but I have no appropriate scientific literature.

I hope for help of forum! See attach file.

 

Vlamir

table 1.pdf

[greg1917]

sorry, what precisely are you saying? that electrons dont inhabit orbitals of probability? if you want the boiling points of these very common and well documented organic compounds go look them up in a data booklet or an internet site.

 

Why do pseudoscientists never give any reason for why they think current theories are wrong?

[Bsun]

I think he is saying that instead of being spherical objects, atoms are polyhedrons.

[NavajoEverclear]

yeah duh, that is what he said. But there isn't really a reason for him to say so. Actually I don't care whatever. Say atoms are poyhedrons, you are free to your faith.

[greg1917]

How can you find information on bond angles and inter-nuclear distances, yet melting points and density figures have escaped you?

and electron clouds are not shapeless, the 3rd quantum number for an electron describes the shape of the orbital. these are worked out via the treatment of electrons as waves; their movement can be described mathematically and the probability of finding an electron inside a given region results in an electron orbital shape. they have specific shapes.

[vlamir]

Me interesting the geometrical form and sizes of atoms.

For example, density of diamond 3513 kg /cub. m, density of graphite 2260 kg / cub. m.

Atomic weight of carbon 12.011u, where u=1.66053873x10 ^-27kg.

Therefore, one atom of carbon occupies space:

In diamond 12.011u/3513x10^30=5.667 cub. angstrom

In graphite 12.011u/2260x10^30=8.825 cub. angstrom

At calculation with the help of parameters of crystal lattices these sizes differ slightly: in diamond 5.673 cub. angstrom, in graphite 9.023 cub. angstrom.

By means of electronic orbitals it is impossible to explain huge strength of diamond and perfect frictional properties of graphite.

Besides there is a problem - what function of remaining points of space in atom, which are not occupied in electronic orbitals?

I would like to make own calculations of these sizes for carbon and hydrogen in simple organic compounds.

I am physicist, but not the organic chemist. I try to find precise informations concerning simple organic compounds in the Internet, but nothing has found while.

 

quote by NavajoEverclear

yeah duh, that is what he said. But there isn't really a reason for him to say so. Actually I don't care whatever. Say atoms are poyhedrons, you are free to your faith.

 

I have weighty arguments to speak that atoms have form of polyhedrons. See attach file.

 

[vlamir]

See attach file.

diam_5.pdf

[greg1917]

What weighty argument? All you've done is draw a polyhedron around the carbon atom shell, that accounts for nothing.

 

Electron orbitals are the reason for the strength of diamond and the comparative strength of diamond, two density calcualtions do not debunk the theories of Max Planck and others.

 

in a diamond there is sp3 hybridisation giving a tetrahedron arrangement of 4 covalent bonds resulting a giant covalent network arrangement. in graphite there is sp2 hybridisation where flat layers of hexagonally arranged carbon are constructed on top of each other. the bond between the layers is simply van der waal's forces which is the reason 'sheets' of carbon can be removed easily - the fact that the pi bonds resulting from the sp2 hybridisation give distributed pi bonds around the 3 covalent bonds from each carbon atom, meaning these bonds are even stronger than an individual diamond bond. the distributed pi bonds also mean delocalised electrons allow charge to flow.

 

In what way do electron orbitas not explain the questions you have asked? they are the reason for the stacking arrangements of both allotropes of carbon.

[vlamir]

Dear GREG,

I respect your adherence to official paradigm about a structure of atoms.

But each of us has the right to own opinion.

My position differs from official. I consider, that the theory by M. Planck is valid, but three postulates by N. Bohr are mistaken.

I have own hypothesis about a structure of atoms and, accordingly, some new formulas for calculation of spectrums of energy states. In my model there are no postulates about discrete states of electrons and about a dualism of wave and particle. These physical phenomena have a quite logical explanation. But one postulate in my model all the same is present. I consider, it as a major disadvantage of the hypothesis.

Right now I would like to test my hypothesis by data from area of organic chemistry. Just precise experimental data about elementary organic molecules are necessary for this purpose to me.

As to postulates, I would like to give such example.

Johan Kepler, at development of his famous equations, was guided by one postulate - that the God-Sun is surrounded by celestial orbs and on each orb lives on one angel. Each angel pushes and rolls the own planet on orb. For us it is naivety. Nevertheless, the equations by Kepler mirror true.

N. Bohr had utilized, as the initial, planetary model of atom and at once three postulates!

Now try to count, how many other postulates were added in the quantum theory to match it with a reality. In number of these postulates, by the way, the postulates for electronic orbitals enter also.

What composite mathematics is applied for calculation of energy levels of electrons in atoms, all of us know.

At the same time, around of us (on the Earth, instead of cosmic space) at macroscopic level there is a set of well observable processes, which can be good model for processes happening between atoms and inside atoms. It is resonance processes.

I study these processes five years. I carry out experiments; I make mathematical calculations and computer simulation for atoms of different elements. Certainly, this too small term for the achievement of convincing results in such complex science. But my investigations give much food for thought.

Most of all of time takes away information retrieval, which is necessary for check of calculations and build-up of models. Spectral characteristics I take in sites “ NIST Atomic Spectra Database ” and “ Kelly Atomic Line Database ”.

Maybe you will advise me a similar site for chemists? Thanks.

[JaKiri]

You've got a misunderstanding of Occam's Razor there.

 

Just because it's complicated doesn't mean it should be rejected, as it doesn't unnecessarily multiply entities.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

You've got a misunderstanding of Occam's Razor there.

 

Just because it's complicated doesn't mean it should be rejected, as it doesn't unnecessarily multiply entities.

 

What is complicated? Math or heaping of postulates?

By the way, my geometric modeling much more complex, but then you may observe and logically check a process.

This helped me to find more simple formulas for the calculation of parameters of atoms.

form of carbon atom.pdf

[greg1917]

I still dont understand why the current theory is even remotely wrong in this area. you said that electron orbitals did not explain the strength of diamond when they are in fact the reason behind it. I respect that youve put time, energy and maths into an alternative hypothesis but electrons inhabit oribtals of probability. large numbers of complex things affect an electrons movement - obviously adjacent electrons, distance from the nucleus, perhaps electrons from bonded/neighbouring atoms. because of this an electrons actual path is wildly eccentric and can only be described as inhabiting a certain region of space where the elctron may be found. electrons exhibit WPD, this is an inescapable fact.

 

are the surfaces of the polyhedrons youve drawn where an electron inhabits an energy level?

[vlamir]

According to the official theory, the electrons move inside atoms on curvilinear trajectories. Therefore, they are subject to acceleration. The accelerated electric charge should radiate (to lose) EM-energy and, eventually, to fall on nucleus.

Why it does not happen to electrons?

My hypothesis is, that in atoms there are no nucleuses and there are no electrons, but there are ring formations of linear energy.

These rings vibrate with discrete frequencies, therefore I have named theirs as polytrons, i.e. multi-frequency emitters. By the way, the polytron is not imagination. You can itself make a ring from any material (steel, copper, lead, plastic, rubber) and to look, how it vibrates. Several rings, which connected in symmetrical spots, exchange energy and polarization of fluctuations. Such “compounds” have a broader frequency spectrum.

With the help of the formulas of classical mechanics I have found the new formulas for calculation of energies and frequencies of mechanical oscillations in rings.

Then I have applied these formulas to calculation of spectrums and energy levels of atoms. The accordance with experiment is very good.

As to an electron, it also is a ring of energy, which comes off polytron at the frequency quantum parameter m=2.

In vacuum this ring behaves, as the lightest polytron.

In the spectrum of hydrogen the Layman’s series is a spectrum of a mobile electron.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by vlamir

According to the official theory, the electrons move inside atoms on curvilinear trajectories. Therefore, they are subject to acceleration. The accelerated electric charge should radiate (to lose) EM-energy and, eventually, to fall on nucleus.

Why it does not happen to electrons?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this model in place for only a few years at most?

 

ps.

 

Learn some QM.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this model in place for only a few years at most?

 

ps.

 

Learn some QM.

 

Me already spoke, that my model is similar to quantum model of Bohr.

I think, that it is more similar to Theory of Brillouin Zones.

"The unessential" difference consists that in my model there are no electrons.

I consider, that the developers of Zone theory had made big error, when they had followed quantum model of Bohr. They were forced to invent the inverse lattice by Bravais and, in that way, finally have tangled very good idea.

 

Last week I have devoted collecting of miserable and separate experimental data about physical-chemical properties of hydrocarbon compounds. I even have looked through the encyclopedia of 1952 Edition.

As a result, I managed slightly to advance in simulation.

form of methane molecule.pdf

[JaKiri]

How can your model have no electrons?

 

They EXIST. There's NO ARGUMENT.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

How can your model have no electrons?

 

They EXIST. There's NO ARGUMENT.

 

How an ionized atom of hydrogen radiates EM-energy, if it has no electron?

[greg1917]

Vlamir, please explain your ludicrous and ridiculous claim that electrons do not exist. Bear in mind to do so you must give repeated experimental data, prove every 20th century scientist wrong, re-write modern chemistry and not rely on pictures of polyhedrons and poorly worded statements of rings. This thread is approaching the pseudoscience forum with ever increasing speed.

[vlamir]

“In development of science we observed the continuous process of accumulation of relative particular truths and their perfecting, specification. At the successive stage not numbers of accumulated before facts, but their out-dated explanation are rejected usually. Cases, when the aged number of facts was put under doubt and was rejected, as it has taken place, for example, with alchemy, - are rather rare. …

… to adopt the kind habit by scientists - do not reject, but interpret numbers accumulated before relative truths in a new fashion - for a long time it is time”.

There are words from book by Äàíèèë Àíäðååâ.

 

GREG,

I don’t assert, that electrons don’t exist at all. I speak, that inside atoms there are generators of photons and electrons, but not electrons. Electrons are particles of energy, which we can watch in space between atoms and molecules, when they have no immediate contact among themselves. My polyhedrons are geometrical models of such generators. For the description of operation of these models I have precise mathematical method and outcomes of experiments.

Now I begin of simulation of elementary compounds of nitrogen and hydrogen, and again for me the problem of data retrieval arises.

By the way, I have come in the forum Organic Chemistry behind the help, but never received it.

If you don’t like my pseudo-science, then let's finish this talk.

form of elementary organic molecules.pdf

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by vlamir

 

How an ionized atom of hydrogen radiates EM-energy, if it has no electron?

 

What the hell kind of question is that?

 

Photons aren't produced by electrons.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

What the hell kind of question is that?

 

Photons aren't produced by electrons.

Quite so.

Photons and electrons have the same parents.

But electrons can be converted into photons – annihilate.

Therefore, there should be an inverse process and any device, which converts photons into electrons.

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by vlamir

But electrons can be converted into photons – annihilate.

 

No they can't, except by annihilation with positrons, which is a well explained phenomenon.

 

Evidence ta.

[vlamir]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

 

No they can't, except by annihilation with positrons, which is a well explained phenomenon.

 

Evidence ta.

 

Who “well explained phenomenon”?

Maybe you have in view the theory of electron defects by Dirac with three postulates for a physical vacuum?