Periodic Law points to double tetrahedron nucleus

[swansont]

In this case we are not even talking about completely different phenomena. We are talking about phenomena that happens to take place within an atomic structure and we are talking about some unknown underlying principle that somehow connects these phenomena with the tetrahedral sphere packing mathematical concept.

 

Would it be so suprising to find out that one unifying principle governs such entities as electrons, protons and neutrons, within the atom?

 

I guess, for some it would be surprising to find out how little we know about the inner workings of the atoms.

 

Finding a pattern is not the same as finding the governing principle. Balmer, Paschen and Lyman series, etc. spectra were discovered before the Hydrogen atom was modeled, and that went through some iterations.

 

Who are the "we" to whom you refer in that last sentence?

[Vts]

Finding a pattern is not the same as finding the governing principle.

 

Didn't you, Swansont, called it "principle" also? See below:

 

How is it you can derive atomic closed shells and nuclear closed shells from this principle, and yet, they do not have the same values?

 

If you don't like word "we", I can rephrase as follows:

 

"I guess, for some it would be surprising to find out how little is known about the inner workings of the atoms."

[John Cuthber]

As has already been pointed out, if the only criterion for the periodic table were atomic number it would just be a string, there would be no periods.

 

If the periods were related to the nuclei then the isotopes of an element wouldn't be in the same place.

The periods reflect the filling of the electron shells.

 

This "new" periodic table adds nothing to the old one (except, perhaps in artistic terms).

 

Swansont, re your question "Who are the "we" to whom you refer in that last sentence?"

I think the answer may be here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

[Vts]

...if the only criterion for the periodic table were atomic number it would just be a string, there would be no periods.

 

Could be a spiral too.

 

If the periods were related to the nuclei then the isotopes of an element wouldn't be in the same place.

 

If the periods were not related to the nuclei, then it would be no reason to begin each period with the element that has atomic number Z greater by one unit than the element at the end of the previous period. Instead of one periodic system we (here I used word "we" again) would have series of unrelated to each other sequences of the elements and ions of some elements would have to be included with ions of other, unrelated elements, just because they would have same number of electrons. What a mess we would have on our hands, if we follow your logic!

 

This "new" periodic table adds nothing to the old one (except, perhaps in artistic terms)

 

ADOMAH PT is the only periodic table that reflects all four quantum numbers (n, l, ml and ms), it has natural limits and lengths of the periods and allows direct readout of the primary quantum number "n".

If you call it "artistic", it is fine with me. Afterall, the art quite often is used to describe the nature.

 

Below is a copy of email that I received form Dr. Henry Bent, prominent chemist and educator:

Date: 4.02.08

Subject: Your emails about your elegant ADOMAH PT

 

Dear Valery,

 

Congratulations! Your elegant ADOMAH PT unites in a pleasing, distinctive, non arbitrary, and scientifically sound manner the theoretically significant regularities of the left step periodic table with the popular symmetry of step pyramid tables. I don't recall seeing a PT that displays so naturally values of "n"...

.

You can read rest of his email at http://www.perfectperiodictable.com

[swansont]

Swansont, re your question "Who are the "we" to whom you refer in that last sentence?"

I think the answer may be here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

 

What does wiki say about rhetorical questions?

 

Didn't you, Swansont, called it "principle" also? See below:

 

 

If you think delving into semantics is the tactic to take here, knock yourself out. Doesn't make your underlying argument any stronger, though.

 

Finding a pattern isn't the same as understanding the physics behind the pattern. I refer you to the Hydrogen spectra I discussed some moments ago.

 

 

If you don't like word "we", I can rephrase as follows:

 

"I guess, for some it would be surprising to find out how little is known about the inner workings of the atoms."

 

 

How little is known by whom? I know some people who know next to nothing about the inner workings of atoms. I know some who know a great deal. The correlation with having a physics degree is quite strong.

[Vts]

If you think delving into semantics is the tactic to take here, knock yourself out. Doesn't make your underlying argument any stronger, though.

 

I am not into tactics. I was confused because it seemed to me as one of your statements contradicted the other. Now it is clear that you'd prefer to call it a "pattern". That is perfectly fine with me. Either way, I found something.

How little is known by whom? I know some people who know next to nothing about the inner workings of atoms. I know some who know a great deal.

I think that those who know next to nothing wouldn't be even surprised.

[John Cuthber]

"What does wiki say about rhetorical questions? "

This

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

 

Anyway, Vts's abillity to generate patterns qualifies him as a wallpaper designer, but not as a scientist.

He also seems able to generate oddly phrased sentences that don't mean a lot like this one "I think that those who know next to nothing wouldn't be even surprised."

 

However what he doesn't seem able to do is explain what inthe name of all that's holy the periodic table has, has had, or ever will have, to do with the properties of nuclei.

 

Incidentally, if you look at his "new improved" version you will find the inert gas helium listed with the alkaline earth metals (Be- Ra) which shows just how radical (i.e. divorced from reallity) he's prepared to be.

 

Perhaps the best joke is to look at the tetrahederal numbers. 1,4,10, 20, 50 etc and see if any of them actually figure in any of his results. He helpfully posts a link to his version so I had a look at it. I chose to start at the bottom with the magical group that includes the alkaline earths and an inert gas.

There's a block that's 8 by 2- OK that's twice the first 2 tetrahederal numbers so that's a start. Then there's a block thats 6 by 6 with 2 stuck on the side- Oh dear- the last time I checked neither 6 nor 18 nor 19 is a tetrahederal number. (and the bit stuck on the side probably looses him his walpaper maker's license.) Things get better with the next block , it's 10 by 4. Now it's not clear to me why you had to double the first set of numbers to get tetrahederal ones- but anyway, it seems you don't need to anymore.

The last block dispells the last hope, its 14 by 2.

 

So what we are talking about here is a reworking of the periodic table that may help with finding something you seldom need to know but does this by putting at least one element in a silly place (and including 2 of the elements twice).

Then it claims to be based on a tetrahederon- well bit's of it are if you squint at it in the right way.

Then it says it's based on the nuclei- which is challenging because it doesn't even distinguish between isotopic nuclei.

Certainly entertaining; equally certainly not science

[Vts]

"Incidentally, if you look at his "new improved" version you will find the inert gas helium listed with the alkaline earth metals (Be- Ra) which shows just how radical (i.e. divorced from reallity) he's prepared to be.

 

Last time I checked inert gas He had both electrons in "s" block, just where Be-Ra have their last two electrons. I strongly recommend to read "New Ideas in Chemistry from Fresh Energy for the Periodic Law": by Dr. Henry Bent where he gives 57 reasons for placing He with Be-Ra, rather then with inert gases.

 

I am not even going to respond to the rest of the John's post, because by now, every one who read all posts on this thread and visited http://www.perfectperiodictable.com can form his or her own opinion.

 

I recently received a note from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roald Hoffmann where he said that he likes my table and one of the Universities asked for my permission to allow them to include ADOMAH in the new textbook about the Periodic Table that is in process of being written.

 

Is it really so "silly" as John put it?

 

I know that you will hear more about ADOMAH ! All the best and thanks for your attention.

[swansont]

I recently received a note from Nobel Prize winner Dr. Roald Hoffmann where he said that he likes my table and one of the Universities asked for my permission to allow them to include ADOMAH in the new textbook about the Periodic Table that is in process of being written.

 

Is it really so "silly" as John put it?

 

 

Into which chapter is he going to put it? If it's a book about the periodic table, and he's trying to explain all of the different periodic tables there are and have been, he's going to include it out of completeness. That doesn't make it an endorsement.

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps he plans to include it as an example of how not to do it.

[sagetech]

John,

I would like to see you come up with a half intelligent idea of your own. People like you read wikis but people like VTS are followed years later by them. The principles of the universe you so blindly ignore tolerate you; couldn't you be more tolerant of someone you don't understand. Then again, maybe you are only proving belligerance is the "proof" of ignorance.

 

If Edison would have had his way, you would still be using a DC light bulb! Maybe you'd smile then.

 

John, apply these groupings to special magnetic properties with faraday counter-rotating disks and come back and comment as though you are actually basing your observations on real world experience.

 

Swan was appearing to be somewhat cordial but you are just bitter. I will never read your response to this because you are a waste of time.

 

VTS, Whatever you do, don't waste your time arguing with dissenters who do nothing but whine and grumble. You waste a minute arguing with them, and the world around you loses.

Edited July 13, 2008 by sagetech
multiple post merged

[swansont]

John,

I would like to see you come up with a half intelligent idea of your own. People like you read wikis but people like VTS are followed years later by them. The principles of the universe you so blindly ignore tolerate you; couldn't you be more tolerant of someone you don't understand. Then again, maybe you are only proving belligerance is the "proof" of ignorance.

 

As a general rule of thumb, a "people like you" diatribe is probably never going to fall into the "proper scientific exchange" category, and this one clearly does not. Don't go in that direction in your discussions.

 

 

VTS, Whatever you do, don't waste your time arguing with dissenters who do nothing but whine and grumble. You waste a minute arguing with them, and the world around you loses.

 

I see no whining and grumbling here. "Dissenters" who point out flaws in a proposal are exactly the ones you need to listen to, lest you develop tunnel vision and think your idea has been perfected.

[John Cuthber]

"John, apply these groupings to special magnetic properties with faraday counter-rotating disks and come back and comment as though you are actually basing your observations on real world experience."

What groupings?

What special magnetic properties?

What, when it's at home, is a Faraday counter-rotating disk?

 

I may not be in the real world, but at least I'm not in the business of inventing random phrases.

 

Anyway, let me know if anything changes about the periodic table being based on the arangement of the electrons and having nothing much to do with the properties of the nuclei. If you can do that without the personal attack it's more likely to get read.

 

In the meantime, for the benefit of those who wonder why I spend my time replying to things like this, have a look here.

http://xkcd.com/386/

[Mr Skeptic]

If Edison would have had his way, you would still be using a DC light bulb! Maybe you'd smile then.

 

Bah! Everyone knows that DC is superior to AC. AC has higher transmission loss over long distances, and can't be used for electronics or charging batteries. Meanwhile, DC can be used for lightbulbs just fine, and is the ideal current for batteries, solar power, and electronics.

[Vts]

:-)To my critics:

 

Please go to ADOMAH userguide. It is good illustration of total superiority of ADOMAH PT over any other formulation.

 

Can IUPAC periodic table be used to derive electron configurations directly (without mnemonic diagram, memorizing stuff, etc)?

 

Can any other periodic table be used for direct determination of the electron configurations in such fashion? Let me know if you find one!

Edited July 18, 2008 by Vts
Spelling

[swansont]

:-)To my critics:

 

Please go to ADOMAH userguide. It is good illustration of total superiority of ADOMAH PT over any other formulation.

 

Can IUPAC periodic table be used to derive electron configurations directly (without mnemonic diagram, memorizing stuff, etc)?

 

Can any other periodic table be used for direct determination of the electron configurations in such fashion? Let me know if you find one!

 

Maybe the periodic table has other uses, like grouping similar behaviors. "Total" superiority would mean it did all things better.

[Vts]

Maybe the periodic table has other uses, like grouping similar behaviors. "Total" superiority would mean it did all things better.

 

Well, it does those too.

I am not against other formulations. Each one shows some things better than other. My view is that the superiority is in reflecting the nature of the elements the best way possible and the electron configurations should take precedence over all other things, which are just derivatives.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Vts

[Yuri Danoyan]

Just in case

 

Evolution of Conway's 92 Look and Say audioactive elements

http://www.btinternet.com/~se16/js/lands2.htm