A Structural Table of the Elements

[mooeypoo]

You seem to be a happy camper when you want to crush the work other - professional - scientists are doing, but when you're asked to follow up with a relatively simple falsification, you claim you're not a professional?

 

Seriously, elas, choose. Either you know enough to crush common knowledge, or you don't, and you need further study.

 

~moo

[elas]

You seem to be a happy camper when you want to crush the work other - professional - scientists are doing, but when you're asked to follow up with a relatively simple falsification, you claim you're not a professional?

 

Seriously, elas, choose. Either you know enough to crush common knowledge, or you don't, and you need further study.~moo

 

Anyone who has read any one of the books that details how scientists ‘crush’ each other will quickly realise that this is the pot calling the kettle black. (Currently reading mc^2, it contains several classic accounts of professional [crushing] behaviour).

 

At no point do I ‘crush’ the work of professionals; my work sets out to answer the question not answered by the Standard model that is the question of how and why. I do this by interpreting the results of modern experiments in a way that leads to the development of two proposals made by Newton coupled with the strict application of the Law of Economy.

 

Falsification might be relatively simple to those who know how to do it, but this is my retirement hobby, next month I shall celebrate my 80th birthday; it is a bit too late to even begin to think about becoming a professional.

 

Take the mathematics used to construct the Table of Element Structure mentioned on this forum, how do I carry out a relatively simple falsification? (I have looked at ‘Falsification’ on Wikipedia, but still cannot grasp how ‘falsification’ should be applied to my work).

 

This work does not ‘crush’ the work of others; but it does explain how the interaction of internal and external forces controls the internal development of atomic structure; the internal development itself has already been described by professionals.

Edited December 13, 2009 by elas

[mooeypoo]

Anyone who has read any one of the books that details how scientists ‘crush’ each other will quickly realise that this is the pot calling the kettle black. (Currently reading mc^2, it contains several classic accounts of professional [crushing] behaviour).

Yes, indeed, scientists "crush" each others' theories all the time, but the scientists who do that actually know what they're talking about, and are able to support their claims with falsifiable testing.

 

You're not.

 

 

 

By the way, don't get me wrong here -- the fact that you're trying is a noble attempt, and you shouldn't just "drop it" because people criticize what you do. However, falsifiability isn't rocket science -- it's quite simple -- you need to find a way in which your statement MIGHT be wrong. Start by *finding* such statement or condition - not even testing it, just.. finding it.

 

If none exists,you should consider that you might have a problem with your logical reasoning; anything unfalsifiable is unscientific by definition.

 

If you can find those, we might be able to see if there are others out there with better equipment or knowledge that can actually physically test those falsifiable claims -- but the step of finding them is yours, since you're the one who knows your own idea. It should be part of your self assessment as to the validity of your ideas/theories.

 

And btw -- happy birthday

 

 

~moo

[elas]

They might know what they are talking about but as the book makes clear one side was always completely wrong! I will have another try at falsification meanwhile:

 

There is a possible development found by inserting a line (thick red) showing the number of isotopes and nuclear isomers as given by Emsley.

Section A is the region where the internal force is the dominant force.

Section C is the region where the external force is the dominant force.

By extending the line for section C to match the line for section A (i.e. to create a 'balanced field') then it can be predicted that the largest possible atomic structure lies at the bottom of the red dash line D (element 136).

 

 

It is also worth noting the similarity of lines A, B, and D with the line that would be created by the joining of particle and anti-particle radii. In both cases we are observing how the interaction of internal and external vacuum forces coupled with the elasticity of matter, creates a balanced field.

Edited December 13, 2009 by elas

[insane_alien]

elas, i'm going to restate a request that has been made before and is a pretty important one.

 

label your graphs and their axes. have a legend as well.

 

graphs only make sense if they're labelled. you may know what they mean but it needs to be obvious to others as well.

[elas]

elas, i'm going to restate a request that has been made before and is a pretty important one.

 

label your graphs and their axes. have a legend as well.

 

graphs only make sense if they're labelled. you may know what they mean but it needs to be obvious to others as well.

 

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.

[insane_alien]

look, its simple, you label every graph whether you want to or not. it is not immediately obvious what the labels should be, okay it is a reasonable assumption to make that the bottom is atomic number but there isn't anything you can assume about the y axis.

 

and if people have to make assumptions then that means you aren't doing a very good job of conveying information. it is the work of 30 seconds to label a graph and its an extension of a previously labelled graph so it should just be a matter of adding in the extra data.

[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.

Edited December 13, 2009 by elas

[John Cuthber]

Which of Emlsley's books are you on about and what, exactly, does it say about the isotopes?

It seems odd to me that a respected author can't count isotopes properly so my guess is that he has provided a list of the majotr ones or some such.

[elas]

Which of Emlsley's books are you on about and what, exactly, does it say about the isotopes?

It seems odd to me that a respected author can't count isotopes properly so my guess is that he has provided a list of the majotr ones or some such.

 

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

It will take time to go through all of the posts, but I have found one prediction that would permit falsification, and elas has apparently not followed up on actually trying to test his hypothesis on that point.

 

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.

Edited December 14, 2009 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[elas]

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

 

Edited December 30, 2009 by elas

[Taktiq]

 

You're welcome

[elas]

You're welcome

 

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?

Edited December 31, 2009 by elas

[Taktiq]

Now show how the pairing of the ground state of shell electrons can be deduced from the table you have illustrated.

 

No

 

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?

 

Geeez, where's your sense of humor?

[elas]

No

 

 

 

Geeez, where's your sense of humor?

 

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

[michel123456]

The current explanation for the nature of the elements uses the outermost one or two electrons and also contains 'exceptions'.

 

A graph of one section of the proposed balanced field structure shows that the inner field electrons determine the class of the elements, while the outer field electrons determine the variation within each class - using all the electrons and requiring no exceptions.

 

IMO if the current model admits exception, it is a very bad model that need improvement.

And if your theory needs no exception, good for you. I think you should make a bigger case of this point.

In my understanding, talking about hypotheses in general, only and only one exception should be enough to ruin an entire theory.

[elas]

IMO if the current model admits exception, it is a very bad model that need improvement.

And if your theory needs no exception, good for you. I think you should make a bigger case of this point.

In my understanding, talking about hypotheses in general, only and only one exception should be enough to ruin an entire theory.

 

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 merged

Fractional 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 merged

Perhaps 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).

Edited January 2, 2010 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[elas]

Corrected table below; with apologies.

 

[elas]

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 merged

Cols.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.

[elas]

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 merged

In 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).

Edited January 28, 2010 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[elas]

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 merged

PS Graphs A and B have been combined to better illustrate the connection between atomic shell electrons and 2CF electrons.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This 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.

Edited February 6, 2010 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

elas, perhaps you'd be better off getting yourself a blog

[elas]

elas, perhaps you'd be better off getting yourself a blog

 

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.

[insane_alien]

i'm not regularly viewing, i just don't care anymore, everytime we try to give you feed back its like talking to a brick wall.

[John Cuthber]

"Secondly to establish a date of publication."

I doubt that many people will be trying to claim precedence on this.