A Theory of Everything

[D H]

U-235 and U-238 are both naturally occurring but neither is stable. I like swansont don't quite know what you're saying.

NS is claimed that elements with atomic mass numbers 5 and 8 don't exist. This claim is easily falsified, and swansont did just that.

 

Moving the goalposts, NS then claimed that the isotopes with atomic mass numbers 5 and 8 aren't stable so they don't count. That can only mean that the isotopes of uranium do not count either because they aren't stable. The purported holes in the periodic table are not limited to 5 and 8, and are meaningless.

 

Forgive me, swansont, for putting words in your mouth, if what I just said is not what you meant.

[Klaynos]

D H, I was hoping NS might come to that conclusion by himself... But I agree with your above post.

 

I was referring to not knowing what he meant in his last post about U235...

[New Science]

And U-235 is one of those long-lived isotopes, so this is either a really bad example or complete nonsense. "All isotopes of U-235" falls under the latter: U-235 is one isotope. Perhaps "all isotopes of uranium" is what you meant.

 

No, U235 does not exist in isolation. It has to be purufied through a process of extraction from uranium.

 

NS

[insane_alien]

newscience, nothing dug out the earth is in isolation. iron is stable yet is often found with a mix of other elements particularly oxygen. it must be refined from iron ore(iron oxide).

 

it is rare that any particular element will be found in a pure state in nature never mind a particular isotope.

[swansont]

No, U235 does not exist in isolation. It has to be purufied through a process of extraction from uranium.

 

NS

 

Non-sequitur. I never claimed that it was. I pointed out that U-235 is a naturally occurring isotope of Uranium, even though it is not stable.

[New Science]

To All:

 

My article was directed about AMN's 5 and 8.

 

8 has a half life of a small fraction of one tenth of a second?

 

And 5 has a fraction of ^-22 seconds?

 

This is hardly a stable state if you consider that to be an existence.

 

On the other hand. with the description of the 'strong force', these 2 AMN's should be completely stable because these nuclei would be clumps of nucleons as shown in some physicss books.

 

So I still say that the strong force is fallaceous and should be replaced by a Quntum type as I have described.

 

Thank you for understanding this reality.

 

NS

[Klaynos]

To All:

 

My article was directed about AMN's 5 and 8.

 

8 has a half life of a small fraction of one tenth of a second?

 

And 5 has a fraction of ^-22 seconds?

 

This is hardly a stable state if you consider that to be an existence.

 

On the other hand. with the description of the 'strong force', these 2 AMN's should be completely stable because these nuclei would be clumps of nucleons as shown in some physicss books.

 

So I still say that the strong force is fallaceous and should be replaced by a Quntum type as I have described.

 

Thank you for understanding this reality.

 

NS

 

The strong force is NOT the only thing involved here, have a look at the semi-empirical mass formula, and you'll see tehre are MANY terms involved in it.

 

You're creating you're own rules to fit your world view... Something can exist or it can't just because it's got a short half life doesn't mean it's any less valid than something with a half life of a few seconds, it's still enough time for it to interact.

[mooeypoo]

Klaynos, in an attempt to clarify something - both for me, and, I believe, for the OP - if a substance that has a halflife of a few seconds can be considered stable, how do you define an UNSTABLE substance?

[Klaynos]

Klaynos, in an attempt to clarify something - both for me, and, I believe, for the OP - if a substance that has a halflife of a few seconds can be considered stable, how do you define an UNSTABLE substance?

 

I don't consider it stable, if it's got a half life it's unstable, as that means it can spontaneously decay.

 

The OP was saying there's no isotopes with atomic mass number of 5 and 8, where as there are, they just aren't stable, but then there are many many (mostly heavier) atomic mass numbers for which there is no stable isotope, so his idea that only 5 and 8 are missing stable isotopes is completely wrong.

[mooeypoo]

I don't consider it stable, if it's got a half life it's unstable, as that means it can spontaneously decay.

 

The OP was saying there's no isotopes with atomic mass number of 5 and 8, where as there are, they just aren't stable, but then there are many many (mostly heavier) atomic mass numbers for which there is no stable isotope, so his idea that only 5 and 8 are missing stable isotopes is completely wrong.

 

Yes, yes, the fact teh OP keeps changing the goal post is obvious to everyone.

 

But the current 'argument' seems to be about what constitutes 'stable' and what isn't. Whatever the answer is, it has no bearing on the OP's question, since moving the goal post is a logical fallacy.. but it does have a bearing on my knowledge, which is nontheless an important cause.

 

So, thank you.

 

~moo

[New Science]

The strong force is NOT the only thing involved here, have a look at the semi-empirical mass formula, and you'll see tehre are MANY terms involved in it.

 

You're creating you're own rules to fit your world view... Something can exist or it can't just because it's got a short half life doesn't mean it's any less valid than something with a half life of a few seconds, it's still enough time for it to interact.

 

I discovered a table of the isotopes. See below

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotope_table_%28complete%29

 

Notice in that table that the Helium nucleus has no isotopes with a half life of more than ONE second.

Notice the side menu color chart on each side of the elements.

 

NS

[insane_alien]

Notice in that table that the Helium nucleus has no isotopes with a half life of more than ONE second.

Notice the side menu color chart on each side of the elements.

 

what baout He-3 and He-4? oh and the legend says that it means less than one day, not second. He-6 comes close(for the unstable isotopes) at just 0.2s short of a second.

[New Science]

what baout He-3 and He-4? oh and the legend says that it means less than one day, not second. He-6 comes close(for the unstable isotopes) at just 0.2s short of a second.

 

OK, so it does say 'one day'.

But you will notice that all the white boxes represent NON existant isotopes. So 5 and 8 do not exist or are shown to be non existant.

 

Who said anything about Helium 3?

 

NS

[Klaynos]

That's not what white means, white means their half lives are less than one day.

 

Have a look down the list the grey ones and notice they peater out...

 

147 looks like teh enxt non-stable number...

[insane_alien]

Who said anything about Helium 3?

 

you said:

 

Notice in that table that the Helium nucleus has no isotopes with a half life of more than ONE second.

 

helium-3 and helium-4 are stable, therefore have a halflife of infinity(or if proton decay is ture, a half life much longer than the life of the universe), much more than one measly second.

[swansont]

OK, so it does say 'one day'.

But you will notice that all the white boxes represent NON existant isotopes. So 5 and 8 do not exist or are shown to be non existant.

 

Nonexistant ≠ unstable

[New Science]

To All

 

I have checked that book by Semat, page 588 and find no omissions of stable missing isotopes except the two (5 and 8) that are missing.

 

This is confirmed by the table above.

 

What appears to be missing isotopes in some elements are supplied by the previous element or the following elements.

 

Check on each element where there appears to be a missing isotope and you will see that it is present in the one before or after the apparent gap in this chain of stable elements and isotopes.

 

Thank you for your patience.

 

NS

[Klaynos]

Did you ignore my post?

 

147....

 

So what's your point there are no stable isotopes with atomic mass number 5 or 8 or 147, this is predicted by our theories... what's your point?

 

Don't ignore this post.

[D H]

I have checked that book by Semat, page 588 and find no omissions of stable missing isotopes except the two (5 and 8) that are missing.

Please! You aren't actually reverting to making the falsified claim that atomic mass numbers 5 and 8 are the only ones that do not exist, are you? Apparently so:

This is confirmed by the table above.

The "table above" falsifies your claim. The boxes in white are known isotopes that have been observed and whose half-life has been measured to be less than one day. The boxes not shown in the table (e.g., ¹⁰⁰He) are the ones that don't exist. Even better said, the boxes not shown in that table represent isotopes we have not yet observed to exist.

[mooeypoo]

To New Science

 

You are not reading a word anyone has ever written to you unless you can twist it to mean something you like.

 

This is confirmed by the post above.

 

What appears to be happening is a blunt ignorance of the forum rules, as well as incredible disrespect for both the entire field of physics and chemistry and the methodology and art of proper debate.

 

Ignoring all sources other than the single one you like is not science. Twisting people's claims to make sure you can answer them is not science. Insisting we are wrong when you clearly havent' even read the answers is not even polite.

 

 

Please stop taking us as fools. We have put more than enough time into your fantasyworld. The least you could do is read what we say.

 

As I said in the other thread (in a post that was actually meant for you), this is beyond trolling. It's utter silliness.

 

Thank you,

 

~moo

 

I think it's time someone puts a stop to this, it's not going anywhere ANYWAYS.

[swansont]

So what's your point there are no stable isotopes with atomic mass number 5 or 8 or 147, this is predicted by our theories... what's your point?

 

Don't ignore this post.

 

I second this call. What's your point? The absence of stable isotopes at the mass numbers violates nothing of mainstream physics.

[mooeypoo]

I feel like I'm watching the ball at a tag-game gone wrong, all the while waiting for the judge to finally stop the carnage and declare an end to it. Or at least halftime.

 

For almost 60 posts NewScience has been consistent in only ONE THING: Ignoring anything he doesn't like. For 60 posts you asked him to not ignore you. You repeated yourselves. You spent time sharing your love and admiration to science while begging he read your sentences. But he broke not. He ignored you. He still does.

 

I would put my money on a reply that answers a twisted (and wrong) version of your question. I am psychic this way. Or maybe it's just because I read this thread as a relative 'outsider' for the past 40+ posts and I am not sure if I should laugh, cry, or call the medics.

 

 

Have we not had enough?

[New Science]

To New Science

 

You are not reading a word anyone has ever written to you unless you can twist it to mean something you like.

 

This is confirmed by the post above.

 

What appears to be happening is a blunt ignorance of the forum rules, as well as incredible disrespect for both the entire field of physics and chemistry and the methodology and art of proper debate.

 

Ignoring all sources other than the single one you like is not science. Twisting people's claims to make sure you can answer them is not science. Insisting we are wrong when you clearly havent' even read the answers is not even polite.

 

 

Please stop taking us as fools. We have put more than enough time into your fantasyworld. The least you could do is read what we say.

 

As I said in the other thread (in a post that was actually meant for you), this is beyond trolling. It's utter silliness.

 

Thank you,

 

~moo

 

I think it's time someone puts a stop to this, it's not going anywhere ANYWAYS.

 

It does not take any brains to criticize but it does take brains to provide solutions.

 

So what is your solitions for those two SIMPLE questions?

 

By the way, I do not drink milk. Ha ha.

 

NS

 

I second this call. What's your point? The absence of stable isotopes at the mass numbers violates nothing of mainstream physics.

 

It sure does. The description of the 'strong force' would not leave any gaps in the Elemental and isotope nuclei chain.

 

Since it is being promoted as a attractive force ONLY with a very short range, it should act like a gravitational force.

 

The gravitational force is NOT a quantum type of force.

There are no quantum mass jumps/energies in the mass bodies observered.

 

NS

[Klaynos]

Again I say this.

 

Go have a look at the semi-empirical mass formula, and you will notice that there is not just a strong force term.

 

Before you start critising a theory it's always best to understand it first, and you clearly don't.

 

You've also ignored my point about atomic mass 147 AGAIN!

[mooeypoo]

It does not take any brains to criticize but it does take brains to provide solutions.

 

So what is your solitions for those two SIMPLE questions?

 

By the way, I do not drink milk. Ha ha.

Well you're blatantly ignoring people and can supply no solutions to either the holes in your own nontheory and the ones that actually HAVE solutions in proven scientific theories.

 

...What does that say about you?

 

I am not sure what you mean about the milk, but just like trolling, ad hominems are not a valid argument.

"Ha. Ha."

 

Trying to switch the subject into an attempt for adhom bash will not make us forget your theory is unproven idiocy, and that you have no respect for the contributors of this forum or science itself.

 

Nice try, though.

 

 

It sure does. The description of the 'strong force' would not leave any gaps in the Elemental and isotope nuclei chain.

 

Since it is being promoted as a attractive force ONLY with a very short range, it should act like a gravitational force.

 

The gravitational force is NOT a quantum type of force.

There are no quantum mass jumps/energies in the mass bodies observered.

 

NS

 

Emphasizing words don't make them true, and it doesn't prove them.

You really should go back to junior high physics, my friend, or at least high-school level debate-class.

 

And finally, I must congratulate you, as I do any one who accomplishes the same (and there are many):

Congratulations!

you just failed peer review.

 

One of the best methodologies of the scientific method, that should encourage thinking and improvement. Whether you like it or not, your theory failed. You may take this as us being idiots, which you're allowed (just like you did in that other forum..) - and we're much better off taking this as it should be taken: A Learning experience for better scientific theories.

 

G'luck next time,

 

~moo