hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, DrP said: If I remember rightly then don't you also get the case where the d shell will half fill with 5 electrons (one in each orbital, unpaired) before the 4s gets filled... then the 3d starts filling again to 10. I think the d shell can 'prefer' to be half full rather than have 4 or 6 electrons in it... cause more confusion with the order of filling iirc. Yes, this is true. Copper is the one that comes to mind here. It's all about balancing repulsion within the d orbitals and the energy gap between the d and s orbital.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 It's based on what you posted. You have electron orbits. Electrons don't orbit. Ergo, your conjecture has no basis experimental fact, or support of theory. Okay excuse my "inexact" language it's a little "unfair" to zoom in on that BUT electrons do exist in energy levels that ARE distinct and THEY CAN NOT exist between them they are EITHER in ONE or ANOTHER - check your quantum physics...
DrP Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, danking said: Hi DrP, I stated at the beginning of the post that this is spin specific i.e. it is half the electron configuration of atoms so either up spin or down spin... and yes the issues around the the p and d I have stated. so in this sequence - Copper would be 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s? 4p? 3d? what I am saying is that in this sequence the numbers are mirrored at the axis: 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 and yes there is a "difference" at the 4p and 3d I haven't delved into that it means and how it impacts I am focusing on the fact that there is a pattern regardless of what I think it means in the PRIME sequence and in the electron configuration "spin specific" ... Sorry - I'm not sure I'm getting the picture... Isn't the number 2 considered prime? Does your theory continue into the f-shells? .... and I am NOT being rude here... just asking... So what? So what if these numbers are prime? What do you think it means?
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 13 minutes ago, danking said: Hi DrP, I stated at the beginning of the post that this is spin specific i.e. it is half the electron configuration of atoms so either up spin or down spin... and yes the issues around the the p and d I have stated. so in this sequence - Copper would be 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s? 4p? 3d? what I am saying is that in this sequence the numbers are mirrored at the axis: 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 and yes there is a "difference" at the 4p and 3d I haven't delved into that it means and how it impacts I am focusing on the fact that there is a pattern regardless of what I think it means in the PRIME sequence and in the electron configuration "spin specific" ... Copper doesn't have any 4p electrons, firstly. Even if it did, they absolutely do not get filled up before the 3d's. Secondly, you claim these two sequences mirror each other, but this only seems to work if you completely make up the last few terms of the electron configuration sequence (which in itself, is made up). Where does the 1, 5 come from? Why is there suddenly another 3 before the second to last 5? Finally, I fail to see how one made up pattern and another made up pattern that are only partly identical for the first few terms of the sequence has any relevance to, well, anything. P.S. It's hypervalent_iodine (me) that you replied to, not DrP. 9 minutes ago, danking said: It's based on what you posted. You have electron orbits. Electrons don't orbit. Ergo, your conjecture has no basis experimental fact, or support of theory. Okay excuse my "inexact" language it's a little "unfair" to zoom in on that BUT electrons do exist in energy levels that ARE distinct and THEY CAN NOT exist between them they are EITHER in ONE or ANOTHER - check your quantum physics... I strongly suggest you check yours first.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Sorry - I'm not sure I'm getting the picture... Isn't the number 2 considered prime? Does your theory continue into the f-shells? .... and I am NOT being rude here... just asking... So what? So what if these numbers are prime? What do you think it means? Yes 2 is considered to be a prime number. Yes it continues into the into f and beyond but as stated previously the f in the prime sequence sits at a 5 and 5 gap so it is the second "difference" and I'm cool with these questions I don't have all the answers - I do have thoughts on what it "could" mean.. Here's the full half sequence for the "up spin" Dan FYI on 2 There is no gap between 1 2 and 3 hence it's not included as it is before the gaps start at 3 and 5 = gap 1 5 and 7 = gap 1 etc
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, danking said: Sorry - I'm not sure I'm getting the picture... Isn't the number 2 considered prime? Does your theory continue into the f-shells? .... and I am NOT being rude here... just asking... So what? So what if these numbers are prime? What do you think it means? Yes 2 is considered to be a prime number. Yes it continues into the into f and beyond but as stated previously the f in the prime sequence sits at a 5 and 5 gap so it is the second "difference" and I'm cool with these questions I don't have all the answers - I do have thoughts on what it "could" mean.. Here's the full half sequence for the "up spin" Dan Your pattern doesn't even hold to the d block, so I'm unsure of how it could be consistent through to the f block.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Apologies re forum this is the first time I have used one... I'm also trying to answer several people at once... and again I'm only posting an observation... it's definitely not made up numbers... just because I am looking at them in a different way doesn't mean it's made up it merely means it's different viewpoint. Copper doesn't have any 4p electrons, firstly. Even if it did, they absolutely do not get filled up before the 3d's. Secondly, you claim these two sequences mirror each other, but this only seems to work if you completely make up the last few terms of the electron configuration sequence (which in itself, is made up). Where does the 1, 5 come from? Why is there suddenly another 3 before the second to last 5? Finally, I fail to see how one made up pattern and another made up pattern that are only partly identical for the first few terms of the sequence has any relevance to, well, anything. P.S. It's hypervalent_iodine (me) that you replied to, not DrP. The 1, 3, 5, etc come from GAPS in the prime sequence maths normally deals with DIFFERENCES gap between 3 and 5 = 1 (i.e. 4) gap between 5 and 7 = 1 (i.e. 6) gap between 7 and 11 = 3 (i.e. 8,9,10) etc hypervalent_iodine I strongly suggest you check yours first. You really need to relax... wow. How do you think new discoveries are made? People spot patterns in things other people haven't seen...
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, danking said: Apologies re forum this is the first time I have used one... I'm also trying to answer several people at once... and again I'm only posting an observation... it's definitely not made up numbers... just because I am looking at them in a different way doesn't mean it's made up it merely means it's different viewpoint. Copper doesn't have any 4p electrons, firstly. Even if it did, they absolutely do not get filled up before the 3d's. Secondly, you claim these two sequences mirror each other, but this only seems to work if you completely make up the last few terms of the electron configuration sequence (which in itself, is made up). Where does the 1, 5 come from? Why is there suddenly another 3 before the second to last 5? Finally, I fail to see how one made up pattern and another made up pattern that are only partly identical for the first few terms of the sequence has any relevance to, well, anything. P.S. It's hypervalent_iodine (me) that you replied to, not DrP. The 1, 3, 5, etc come from GAPS in the prime sequence maths normally deals with DIFFERENCES gap between 3 and 5 = 1 (i.e. 4) gap between 5 and 7 = 1 (i.e. 6) gap between 7 and 11 = 3 (i.e. 8,9,10) etc I get that, but you haven't actually addressed my question. If the point is that your prime gaps sequence matches or mirrors your supposed electronic configuration sequence, then please explain where 3, 5, 1, 5, comes from with reference to the latter. I am not interested in the prime gaps component of your post, I am interested in the electronic configuration. Based on how you arrived to your numbers, I do not see how 3, 5, 1, 5, at all fits with the electronic configuration sequence.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 12 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: Your pattern doesn't even hold to the d block, so I'm unsure of how it could be consistent through to the f block. It's not my pattern... and it does hold and as you stated from f it is pretty much made up anyway! Check out the periodic table and the giant gap from 57 onwards - 14 elements don't fit in... BUT did anyone shoot Dmitri Mendeleev lol no...
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 PS. It would be useful if you quoted members here using the quote function, rather than copy pasting. At the bottom left of the post you wish to respond to is a Quote button.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: I get that, but you haven't actually addressed my question. If the point is that your prime gaps sequence matches or mirrors your supposed electronic configuration sequence, then please explain where 3, 5, 1, 5, comes from with reference to the latter. I am not interested in the prime gaps component of your post, I am interested in the electronic configuration. Based on how you arrived to your numbers, I do not see how 3, 5, 1, 5, at all fits with the electronic configuration sequence. I'm trying to answer the questions I can only type so fast and I am having to edit diagrams to repost... I have to also wait 14 seconds lol ( your forum not mine.. ) negative prime numbers are a mirror... -7 -5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 5 7 Is that what you meant?
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Just now, danking said: It's not my pattern... and it does hold and as you stated from f it is pretty much made up anyway! Check out the periodic table and the giant gap from 57 onwards - 14 elements don't fit in... BUT did anyone shoot Dmitri Mendeleev lol no... I have shown you explicitly where and why is doesn't hold, and you have not yet shown me how I am wrong. The f block is absolutely not made up. It is presented that way for a reason, not because they don't belong there.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 3 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: PS. It would be useful if you quoted members here using the quote function, rather than copy pasting. At the bottom left of the post you wish to respond to is a Quote button. I'm trying but on a mac it is VERY buggy and doesn't always work - again this isn't my forum... it copies the entire reply rather than the bits I am trying to answer - maybe 1 question at a time would be helpful
DrP Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, danking said: it copies the entire reply rather than the bits I am trying to answer - maybe 1 question at a time would be helpful Yes it does that - then you delete what you don't want... or you can highlight your quote and then hit the quote button. Both work. ....and don't worry about me - concentrate on Hyperval's q's. Here knowledge of pure chemistry is a lot more current and thorough than mine. Thanks. Edited August 31, 2017 by DrP
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 39 minutes ago, danking said: 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 Okay, lets go through this one thing at a time. The above sequence. Does this show the electronic configuration sequence? Is this the left side of the axis or right?
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 1 minute ago, DrP said: Yes it does that - then you delete what you don't want... or you can highlight your quote and then hit the quote button. Both work. Thanks.. will do... Just now, hypervalent_iodine said: Okay, lets go through this one thing at a time. The above sequence. Does this show the electronic configuration sequence? Is this the left side of the axis or right? Okay it obviously gets very small and hard to see but yes... This is GAPS from - 37 to 37 and this other than the issues raised shows the electron configuration: 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 These are prime gaps in the sequence -37 -31 -29 -23 -19 -17 -13 -11 -7 -5 -3 0 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 Which takes you from 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 4p6 3d10 5s2 4d10
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 5 minutes ago, danking said: Thanks.. will do... Okay it obviously gets very small and hard to see but yes... This is GAPS from - 37 to 37 and this other than the issues raised shows the electron configuration: 5 1 5 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 So here's the problem. You have completely ignored the basic tenants of how orbitals are populated to make your pattern fit the order you want it to fit. 4p orbitals do not fill before the 3d orbitals do, so this term should come after rather than before. This makes the sequence 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1..., which doesn't match your prime gap sequence. You can't just change physics to make your pattern work. 1
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 Yes I know that is the one major problem BUT otherwise, it matches... I did say that from the very first post it's not my prime gap sequence it is the prime gap sequence lol 2 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: So here's the problem. You have completely ignored the basic tenants of how orbitals are populated to make your pattern fit the order you want it to fit. 4p orbitals do not fill before the 3d orbitals do, so this term should come after rather than before. This makes the sequence 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1..., which doesn't match your prime gap sequence. You can't just change physics to make your pattern work. On 27/08/2017 at 1:29 PM, danking said: The electron configuration of atoms is a pretty important sequence of numbers: 1s2 2s2 2p6 3s2 3p6 4s2 3d10 4p6 5s2 4d10 (Hydrogen to Palladium) Essentially: 2, 2, 6, 2, 6, 2, 10, 6, 1, 10 If you isolate the up electron spin: 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 3d5 4p3 5s1 4d5 or: 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1 5 ... The prime number sequence is an equally important sequence of numbers: 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53... If you isolate the number gaps between the primes i.e. between prime 3 and prime 5 is the number 4 i.e. a gap of 1 number: Number gaps in the prime sequence: 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 Electrons configuration spin up: 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 3 1 5 There seems to be a correlation between these sequences other than: 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5 (Primes Gaps) 1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 3d5 4p3 5s1 4d5 (Electron Configuration from Hydrogen to Cadmium) Am I missing something here? The prime number sequence and the electron configuration arguably the two most important sequences in the universe and they seem to match? Is that merely a coincidence or significant? Thanks for any feedback! Dan Here is some of my first post... I'm not changing physics it is an observation Einstein did mind experiments to come up with relativity - he imagined light lol I'm showing a DISTINCT pattern - a real PATTERN you can see... with one DIFFERENCE A CONNECTION between the 2 most important sequences in the universe.
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 It either matches or it doesn't, and in your case, it doesn't. Let's take it further though. Prime gap sequence: 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 3, 1, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 3, 1, 5 Electronic configuration 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 7, 5, 3, 1, 7, 5, 3, 1 Again, more problems. 8 of 20 terms don't match. That's almost half. The sequences do not match. Edit: and this is ignoring that you didn't include 2 in your list of primes, despite it being a prime number. As I said, you can't just change the facts the make it fit what you want. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. 1
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 21 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: Edit: and this is ignoring that you didn't include 2 in your list of primes, despite it being a prime number. As I said, you can't just change the facts the make it fit what you want. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. Okay this first as it is easier to answer lol... THERE IS NO GAP BETWEEN 1 2 AND 3 THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT INCLUDED GAP BETWEEN 1 AND 2 = O GAP BETWEEN 2 AND 3 = 0 GAP BETWEEN 3 AND 5 = 1 HENCE 1,1, ETC
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 Could you possibly respond to the other 95% of my post? The comment about the number 2 was just an aside.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 23 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: It either matches or it doesn't, and in your case, it doesn't. Let's take it further though. Prime gap sequence: 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 3, 1, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 3, 1, 5 Electronic configuration 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 7, 5, 3, 1, 7, 5, 3, 1 Again, more problems. 8 of 20 terms don't match. That's almost half. The sequences do not match. These match (ignore the middle) takes us up to the 57th Element or Ba... row 6! I mean these larger element shells are more fudged even the periodic table fudges at Ba 14 elements aren't included 57 - 71 and 89 - 103 The pattern is a 3D pattern... I'm going to drill into the There 2 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: Could you possibly respond to the other 95% of my post? The comment about the number 2 was just an aside. OMG give me a minute! You were wrong about the number 2 Not whoops I'm sorry I made an error no... hurry up answer the more complex bit lol -1
hypervalent_iodine Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 They aren't fudged. They're placed that way because it's more compact and easier to see. Are you seriously denying the existence of f orbitals? I'm sorry, but you're argument is completely unconvincing. The sequences match, except for that bit in the middle, and please ignore half of the periodic table because those don't match either. That's essentially what you're saying. 1
DrP Posted August 31, 2017 Posted August 31, 2017 7 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: I'm sorry, but you're argument is completely unconvincing. The sequences match, except for that bit in the middle, and please ignore half of the periodic table because those don't match either. That's essentially what you're saying. That's Number Wang! Numerology does that a lot.
danking Posted August 31, 2017 Author Posted August 31, 2017 15 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: 8 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said: They aren't fudged. They're placed that way because it's more compact and easier to see. Are you seriously denying the existence of f orbitals? It is a fudge if you included the 15 elements that are "left out" Hf would sit where Rd is.. and it would be a noble gas lol f orbitals are just giant s, p and d orbitals anyway funny how all the probability "shells" are shaped like my diagrams lol those p's look a hell of a lot like what I am showing ;-) The sequences match, except for that bit in the middle, and please ignore half of the periodic table because those don't match either. What do you mean the half that barely exists.... and has not been studied in its entirety that half? lol FYI the half you are suggesting is radioactive: Francium. Firstly, Francium is REALLY rare! It is radioactive and it breaks down into other elements very quickly. It was discovered in France in 1939 by a French physicist called Marguerite Perey. There are thought to be only 30 grams of it on the Earth at one time. for instance... 8 minutes ago, DrP said: That's Number Wang! Numerology does that a lot. numerology? lol really... -1
Recommended Posts