Standardized Atomic Structure Uncovered Through Pattern Recognition

[smacscience]

The general assumption is that at the quantum level, atoms lack a defined shape beyond their nucleus, and thus can only be represented by a probability-based "electron cloud."

 

In point of fact, there is overwhelming evidence that (1) each element in the periodic table has a permanent, defined shape; (2) that the variations in atomic design are standardized from one element to the next; and (3) that the overall shape of an element controls the majority of the atom's properties.

 

Instead of trying to fill this post with too much detail. I will just point you to the website created for purposes of describing and displaying 3D models of various elements.

 

The website address is: <removed by moderator>

 

There are also links to a YouTube channel and a Flickr photostream accessible from the website homepage.

 

Thus far, only about 40 of the elements have been fully modeled, though that is more than enough to demonstrate the standardized design of the elements, and the way in which their shape controls their properties.

 

The evidence for standardized atomic structure is overwhelming in that the patterns of variations in shape created by a standardized design correspond directly to variations in many of the properties of the elements; things such as density, hardness, electrical conduction, catalysis and state of matter at room temperature. In other words, the models created from the standardized design predict, with 100% accuracy, the aforementioned classes of elemental properties. As such, coincidence is simply not a possibility.

 

A few .jpeg examples are attached, in no particular order.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

smacscience

 

Moved to speculations. Please take a moment to read through the rules of this individual forum

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

 

Also - we are not fans of topics introduced to direct members to another site, on this basis I have removed your link. Any discussion and explanation should occur here rather than merely pointing at pages on another site. Thanks

 

 

 

[Enthalpy]

It's not only speculation... It's faaaaaaar too late for any kind of speculation. For three decades, since the invention of the tunnel effect microscope and later the atomic force microscope, we see individual atoms, and even individual orbitals. There is nothing to be speculated any more.

[smacscience]

It's not only speculation... It's faaaaaaar too late for any kind of speculation. For three decades, since the invention of the tunnel effect microscope and later the atomic force microscope, we see individual atoms, and even individual orbitals. There is nothing to be speculated any more.

That would be a fair point if the models only resolved down to the orbital.... if you take a look you will see that they resolve down to the individual electron. That is something microscopy cannot do. I refer you to Heisenberg's uncertainty principal.

 

More to the point, the accuracy and efficacy of the models can be verified by anyone with half a brain and access to Wikipedia. It seems, at least to me, that you didn't try. Of course, since the moderator took out the smacscience link, you may not have had access to all of the information. Just the same, your comment is off-point.

!

Moderator Note

 

smacscience

 

Moved to speculations. Please take a moment to read through the rules of this individual forum

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

 

Also - we are not fans of topics introduced to direct members to another site, on this basis I have removed your link. Any discussion and explanation should occur here rather than merely pointing at pages on another site. Thanks

 

 

 

 

I generated the website and provided a link to it because there is simply too much necessary information and detail to fit into a forum post. The website doesn't sell anything, advertise anything or collect any type of personal data. It is simply information. Unfortunately, these days its more and more common for people to act to benefit the rules, instead of the rules acting to benefit people. That said, its your forum and if you don't want to have links in your posts, that's your choice.

 

Regarding the post's designation as "speculation" I have to disagree. There is nothing speculative about anything I said about what I have done (i.e., the facts stated are accurate and readily verifiable) and the models themselves can be verified by anyone with half a brain and internet access. Of course, without access to all of the information provided on the website, such verification is impossible. This, of course, renders the entire effort futile.

 

If you will not restore the link to the website, I ask that you delete this entire thread and I will find more liberal forums willing to help me disseminate this information.

[Strange]

There is nothing speculative about anything I said about what I have done (i.e., the facts stated are accurate and readily verifiable) and the models themselves can be verified by anyone with half a brain and internet access.

 

Which peer-reviewed journals has this work been published in?

If not, why not?

[John Cuthber]

I refer you to Heisenberg's uncertainty principal.

 

 

And I am referring you back to it.

The problem with looking at individual orbitals isn't that you can't resolve the position to that accuracy. It's that the position of the electron does not exist to that accuracy.

You are seeking to say exactly where the electrons are, and that is forbidden by Heisenberg's principle.

Your own evidence, once it's correctly interpreted, shows you are wrong. I don't need to follow the deleted link to see that your ideas don't make sense.

 

Of course, since you are plainly wrong, the question is whether this thread should be in speculations or the trashcan.

It certainly does not belong on the regular forum threads.