1612.903?

[sunshaker]

A while back I was trying to use the "elements/periodic table" to measure time, but it got closed ,

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82760-the-electron-years-what-element-are-you/

 

To cut to the chase, to go through a complete table was 3100 years, so I had cycles of 3100yrs within cycles, but to go through the next cycle took 5 million years(ever expanding cycles).

 

I then wanted to see how many of these 3100yr cycles fitted within the 5,000,000yr cycle, This gave me 1612.9032, which I googled,

 

These two caught my attention:

This first one is an Acceleration Conversion Table, but am not quite sure what it is saying about this figure 1612.9032?

http://www.calcul.com/show/calculator/acceleration-conversion

 

This second one ls atomic weights(old), it lists stibium(Antimony)=pondera atomica=1612.903 but antimony as a atomic weight of 127.7. ?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6745AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=1612.903&source=bl&ots=U4OIjfV4H9&sig=mrGKMiJ1ydkOUqu_3GxkN0_TMS4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4lZ6Ks5jMAhXGuhoKHduXBA0Q6AEIPjAI#v=onepage&q=1612.903&f=false

 

 

I wondered if anyone could give this figure 1612.903 a bit more clarification within these two examples for me?

 

Cheers sunshaker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acceleration Conversion Calculator.html

[Strange]

This first one is an Acceleration Conversion Table, but am not quite sure what it is saying about this figure 1612.9032?

http://www.calcul.com/show/calculator/acceleration-conversion

 

That should be the number of metres in a mile. But it is wrong, it should be 1609.34

 

This second one ls atomic weights(old), it lists stibium(Antimony)=pondera atomica=1612.903 but antimony as a atomic weight of 127.7. ?

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6745AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=1612.903&source=bl&ots=U4OIjfV4H9&sig=mrGKMiJ1ydkOUqu_3GxkN0_TMS4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4lZ6Ks5jMAhXGuhoKHduXBA0Q6AEIPjAI#v=onepage&q=1612.903&f=false

 

I assume that is a combination of an inaccurate value and different units. The current standard for atomic mass is based on 1/12 of the mass of a single carbon-12 atom. I have no idea what Berzelius meant by pondera atomica, nor how accurate his numbers are.

 

 

But as this appears to be a search for numerological connections, the inaccuracies hardly matter.

[sunshaker]

 

That should be the number of metres in a mile. But it is wrong, it should be 1609.34

 

 

I assume that is a combination of an inaccurate value and different units. The current standard for atomic mass is based on 1/12 of the mass of a single carbon-12 atom. I have no idea what Berzelius meant by pondera atomica, nor how accurate his numbers are.

 

 

But as this appears to be a search for numerological connections, the inaccuracies hardly matter.

Thanks for your reply Strange, Inaccuracies matter to me. It was just that these figures matched to at least 4 decimal places that they caught my attention. And they where related to time/elements.

Edited April 18, 2016 by sunshaker

[Strange]

ccording to this, Berzelius' atomic weights were based on oxygen being 100: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6ns_Jacob_Berzelius#Law_of_definite_proportions

(Which is confirmed by the table in the book)

 

But that seems to make his value for antimony wrong by more than a factor of 2. Rather surprising.

 

Aha! Unless his value for oxygen was for O₂. That would make sense; his value for antimony in modern units would then be 129.03. Pretty good for a dead guy.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Strange

[Sensei]

I wondered if anyone could give this figure 1612.903 a bit more clarification within these two examples for me?

Looks like numerology to me...

 

That should be the number of metres in a mile. But it is wrong, it should be 1609.34

But there is no single definition of "mile".

There is Roman mile, English mile, Scots mile, Welsh mile, Russian mile... etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile

 

Even now there are three: International, nautical and U.S. survey mile..

[Strange]

But there is no single definition of "mile".

There is Roman mile, English mile, Scots mile, Welsh mile, Russian mile... etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile

 

From your source:

"standardised as exactly 1,609.344 metres by international agreement in 1959.

With qualifiers, "mile" is also used to describe or translate a wide range of units"

(emphasis added).

 

The use in question was unqualified and thus assumed to refer to the standard.

 

I tried nautical miles as well. But that was even more wronger.

[sunshaker]

I know most will see this as numerology, But that's ok,

I believe there are a possible 172 elements to the periodic table(all possible matter/dark matter/universe),

I can use these "elements to measure time, through the years",

First day =z1 hydrogen

To travel through the first cycles takes 3100 years to the day: 31/12/3099=z172 (3100yrs)

 

 

The next cycle is 5 million years to the day: 31 /12 /4,99,99,99 =z344 = 2 x z172 = (5 million yrs)

As I previously said 3100 yrs goes into 5 million 1612.903 times,

Meters in a mile has caught my interest, we have defined the mile as 1609.344 meters, but perhaps a mile could just as easy be defined as 1612.903 meters.

We as humans have defined the length of a mile, could we be unconsciously copying a property of the universe, Time=distance?

1 meter=3100 years.=z172 (first cycle)

1 mile=5 million years= 2 x z172 = z344. (second cycle)

There are cycles within cycles, 3100 year, 5 million years

distance within distances= cm/meters/miles

time in time, hours,days, months, years.

Time and distance, A different perspective of the same entity, Separated for human understanding in our 3d/4d world..

 

[Strange]

Meters in a mile has caught my interest, we have defined the mile as 1609.344 meters, but perhaps a mile could just as easy be defined as 1612.903 meters.

 

See, I told you it didn't matter.

 

Numerologists always ignore numbers that don't fit an replace it with one that does. That is why numerology always "works".

[sunshaker]

 

See, I told you it didn't matter.

 

Numerologists always ignore numbers that don't fit an replace it with one that does. That is why numerology always "works".

it does matter, my periods of time cannot be changed, a meter is a meter, but from what i can gather "a mile", has "sensi" says was standardised by "international agreement", Which could once again be changed by agreement.

To me, humans are on a journey, new insights open up all the time(but they are always there waiting to be found), and we make the changes to fit new information/measurements.

[Strange]

it does matter, my periods of time cannot be changed, a meter is a meter, but from what i can gather "a mile", has "sensi" says was standardised by "international agreement", Which could once again be changed by agreement.

 

The same is true of the metre. And the second. And the year.

 

I believe there are a possible 172 elements to the periodic table

 

I assume you have made up this number because it "works" as well.

[sunshaker]

I believe there are a possible 172 elements to the periodic table.

 

I assume you have made up this number because it "works" as well.

I came to z172 after following electron sequences, and noticed z172 seemed to complete the table, then allowing me to fit two together like a jigsaw.

But after searching I found others who also predict 172 elements.

 

Eric scerri advocates z172: http://ericscerri.com/

 

Pekka Pyykkö, for example, used computer modeling to calculate the positions of elements up to Z=172,

 

my mirror periodic table z1 to z172

 

What I found interesting within my tables, If I add up all the protons in the naturally occurring 92 elements, shown in left corner coloured to each chemical group, came to 4232,

Then if i add up anti protons/positrons shown in red I get 25444,

This gives me a ratio of 16% matter to 84% dark matter/supersymmetric particles.

dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the Universe, http://en.wikipedia....iki/Dark_matter

[Strange]

I came to z172 after following electron sequences, and noticed z172 seemed to complete the table, then allowing me to fit two together like a jigsaw.

 

Oh dear: "All elements from atomic numbers 1 (hydrogen) to 118 (ununoctium) have been discovered or synthesized"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

 

Hypothesis falsified.

 

 

dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the Universe

 

For pretty obvious reasons, dark matter cannot be made of any elements in the periodic table.

[sunshaker]

 

Oh dear: "All elements from atomic numbers 1 (hydrogen) to 118 (ununoctium) have been discovered or synthesized"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

 

Hypothesis falsified.

 

 

Of all the elements in the periodic table, only the first 92 are "naturally found", while the others are "synthetically made". The 92 natural elements are the ingredients used to make everything we find on Earth.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/geology/periodic_table.html&edu=high

 

 

For pretty obvious reasons, dark matter cannot be made of any elements in the periodic table.

These 92 elements are the physical matter we are aware off, The higher elements z93 to z172 exist as a potential, which for fleeting moments, some have been made/created "synthetically",

The opposing elements in the mirror table: In particle physics, a Superpartner (also sparticle) is a hypothetical elementary particle. Supersymmetry is one of the synergistic theories in current high-energy physics that predicts the existence of these "shadow" particles.

Which are candidates for dark matter.

In physics, mirror matter, also called shadow matter or Alice matter, is a hypothetical counterpart to ordinary matter.

Mirror particles interact amongst themselves in the same way as ordinary particles, except where ordinary particles have left-handed interactions, mirror particles have right-handed interactions. In this way, it turns out that mirror reflection symmetry can exist as an exact symmetry of nature,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter

Edited April 21, 2016 by sunshaker

[Strange]

These 92 elements are the physical matter we are aware off, The higher elements z93 to z172 exist as a potential, which for fleeting moments, some have been made/created "synthetically",

 

For some reason I misread you as saying 117 elements. Sorry about that.

 

In particle physics, a Superpartner (also sparticle) is a hypothetical elementary particle. Supersymmetry is one of the synergistic theories in current high-energy physics that predicts the existence of these "shadow" particles.

Although some supersymmetry particles are candidates for dark matter, they are not constituents of atoms.

 

Atoms, of any atomic weight, cannot be dark matter. Not even if they are atoms made of supersymmetry sparticles.

[sunshaker]

 

 

 

Atoms, of any atomic weight, cannot be dark matter. Not even if they are atoms made of supersymmetry sparticles.

I did find this about "new kind of dark matter could form dark atoms/protons",

http://www.space.com/21508-dark-matter-atoms-disks.html

 

 

 

The interactions between dark protons and dark electrons could make them lose energy over time. As such, they might slow down enough to clump into flat disks around galaxies, just like regular matter does. In contrast, most dark matter apparently forms roughly spherical haloes around galaxies, stars and planets.

For some reason my quote as gone to the dark side

[Strange]

I did find this about "new kind of dark matter could form dark atoms/protons",

http://www.space.com/21508-dark-matter-atoms-disks.html

 

That article is so vague as to be useless.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1521

 

Nothing to do with supersymmetry though. This would appear to require a completely new, unknown types of particles.

[sunshaker]

 

That article is so vague as to be useless.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1521

 

Nothing to do with supersymmetry though. This would appear to require a completely new, unknown types of particles.

While the article may be a little vague, I found this interesting:

This concept means galaxies would have two disks, one made of regular atoms and one made of dark atoms, which is why researchers call their idea the double-disk dark matter model.

 

I was doing something similar with my "model",

 

My two opposing periodic tables represent the universe/proton(all matter/dark matter) that then forms similar discs of matter and dark matter,

 

Take this first table it shows the 92 natural occurring element, with the red/dark matter bound within normal matter.

I am seeing this as a kind of Casimir effect between matter/dark matter

 

 

This table/gif below shows some of the cycles/expansions I am "trying" to convey, Universes, galaxies, solar systems, Each expansion contains varying degrees of matter/dark matter. We exist in a goldilocks zone, where matter/dark matter allows for stable physics and for life to evolve.

Edited April 21, 2016 by sunshaker

[Strange]

I was doing something similar with my "model",

 

If you read the full paper, you will see that they do a lot of detailed analysis of what the effects of this type of dark matter would be, what the observational constraints are and so on. In other words, they have a model.

 

On the other hand, you have some colourful pictures.

[sunshaker]

 

If you read the full paper, you will see that they do a lot of detailed analysis of what the effects of this type of dark matter would be, what the observational constraints are and so on. In other words, they have a model.

 

On the other hand, you have some colourful pictures.

I have had a quick look through the paper, I do not understand all of the math, but still get a good idea of the concepts, which even though you may not see, it relates to what I am trying to show, I am never going to be able to show my model with the math most want to see,

I am just someone who got interested in science latter in life, I try and show my ideas/thoughts with the "tools" I have available,

maybe not up to the standards of their model from Harvard university. but I'm trying.

 

A lot of my time as been trying to fit this model into a "Proton" (proton universe).

Edited April 21, 2016 by sunshaker

[swansont]

How do you test your idea in a falsifiable way?

[sunshaker]

How do you test your idea in a falsifiable way?

I am not really sure, something I will have to think more upon.

 

I do know my idea only works "IF" the periodic table does extend to z172. This is the frame I have built "my model" on.

[swansont]

I am not really sure, something I will have to think more upon.

 

I do know my idea only works "IF" the periodic table does extend to z172. This is the frame I have built "my model" on.

So there's no science here, is that it?

[sunshaker]

So there's no science here, is that it?

You say no science here?

But with these tables, I can show a possible cause for the 16% matter to the 84% dark matter.

 

I can show Top quark mass 173 gev, W boson, Z boson, the Higgs, also the new 750 gev bump,

Also what I believe may be the next particle at higher energy runs: 1087 gev.

 

And perhaps a cause for gravity (Casimir effect).

 

This all within the extended element table, it is far from perfect "yet", but most models are in the beginning,

 

Most models have many great minds working on them, and evolve through collaboration, Unlike myself and many others who work alone, with only a few comments from forum members, We do not do this to change the world, we do it because we love science as much as any "Scientist", So our models do lack the rigour/math of "professional models".

 

I believe there may be a Janus point within the proton, which could bring together QM & Relativity.

http://qz.com/596514/its-possible-that-there-is-a-mirror-universe-where-time-moves-backwards-say-scientists/

[swansont]

You say no science here?

But with these tables, I can show a possible cause for the 16% matter to the 84% dark matter.

 

I can show Top quark mass 173 gev, W boson, Z boson, the Higgs, also the new 750 gev bump,

Also what I believe may be the next particle at higher energy runs: 1087 gev.

Have you shown this? No. IOW, you have shown no science, and numerology is not science.

 

And perhaps a cause for gravity (Casimir effect).

The Casimir effect is not the cause of gravity. It's tiny and not a 1/r^2 interaction, for starters.

 

 

This all within the extended element table, it is far from perfect "yet", but most models are in the beginning,

 

Most models have many great minds working on them, and evolve through collaboration, Unlike myself and many others who work alone, with only a few comments from forum members, We do not do this to change the world, we do it because we love science as much as any "Scientist", So our models do lack the rigour/math of "professional models".

The biggest issue is that you aren't actually doing science. You're doing a caricature of science. You're doing what you imagine scientists do.

 

 

I believe there may be a Janus point within the proton, which could bring together QM & Relativity.

http://qz.com/596514/its-possible-that-there-is-a-mirror-universe-where-time-moves-backwards-say-scientists/

I'm skeptical that an hypothesis that does incorporates neither GR nor quantum mechanics is going to yield their unification. Or apply to the proton.

[sunshaker]

Have you shown this? No. IOW, you have shown no science, and numerology is not science.

 

 

Not in this thread, which started out asking for clarification on 1612.903, but then I felt I had to defend my 172 elements, some of my ideas on this are here http://alpha-omega-sunshaker.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/top-quark-condensate.html

 

 

 

The Casimir effect is not the cause of gravity. It's tiny and not a 1/r^2 interaction, for starters.

I have only just gotten into the Casimir effect and its relations to zero point energy/vacuum energy.

I was thinking that maybe there was a Casimir effect between matter and dark matter, but I have only just started thinking on this.

 

 

 

The biggest issue is that you aren't actually doing science. You're doing a caricature of science. You're doing what you imagine scientists do.

I am looking at science from my point of understanding, I know what "SCIENTISTS" do, I am not a "scientist", I am someone interested in science, and see something within the extended periodic table.