Two New Periodic Tables of Elements

AW
You keep doing this.
Referring people to another site.
Your excuse is that the theory is too big to explain on this site,
but if what you want to say is really not suitable for a General Science site, perhaps you shouldn't be posting on here.

Non-mainstream ideas, known on here disparagingly as woo woo, are really valuable, because they bring up subjects that are neglected.
Occasionally, they may even prove to be correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My dim memory of A Level chemistry is telling me that there's something weird about Copper where its energy levels are not ordered in the way you'd expect if you fill each shell in order. Is this what you're referring to or have I finally forgotten everything from high school other than maths and physics?

Aether'Wizard', I suggest you get yourself a book on introductory quantum mechanics and read up on how Schrodinger arrived at the equation which bears his name, taking the time to actually read the derivation itself not just skipping it. Then at least you'll have seen how a mainstream proper derivation of a result from anything close to base principles is done. From that Schrodinger equation its a short hop to the electron orbital energy levels and shapes of the Hydrogen atom. In fact its sufficiently simple that its standard homework material for any introductory course in QM as it comes down to solving a simple 2nd order PDE which splits via separation of variables.

Are you familiar with this in quantum mechanics? If not then perhaps it would help you to grasp just how far short of providing 'justified reasoning' for your position you are if we went through it in this thread. As well as being a condescending insulter of hacks I can at times be helpful and this is me offering to help. If you aren't familiar with it and you have no intention of even looking at it then don't be surprised if replies to your claims become even more vitriolic (and not just from me).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wiki says something similar, though it says it was the Danish branch who suggested "bohrium", not Americans.

You edit the periodic.lanl.gov pages?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you have a personal hangup with me? Lay off the personal projections and discuss the physics.

 

The web site had just been put up that weekend.

Why not? Have you looked at the table in depth, yet?

Only in the actinide and lanthanum series.

Yes, and in left and right as in the case of the table. The table is a 2D representation. You might want to think of the atom itself as having two hemispheres. One hemisphere would fill partially and then filling switches to the other hemisphere.

 

Maybe if the reading is too difficult you might try the Captain Kangaroo web site.

If the new theory didn't require explanations for why it was justified, it would be old theory. Did you ever read James Clerk Maxwell's original paper? It's something like eighty pages to explain twenty equations, which were ultimately reduced to four equations. Imagine presenting Maxwell's theory for the first time in this group where people complain about long posts.

My work is in the same vein. There are several important new concepts, such as distributed charge notation, two quantified types of quantum charges, quantum aether units, other new units, new equations, and other new concepts. All of these are necessary to understand as a whole since they represent a different paradigm from the present mainstream physics, just as Maxwell's work required several pages of introductory concepts before he could get to the meat of his work.

Besides, if I presented just a few unsupported statements, you and the gang would be all over me for not explaining how my statements could be supported. Enough of the complaining. If you don't want to read the work, fine, lurk and let others do it.

 

It is not beneath me to accept your offer and to learn something new. The problem is, I can't trust you, yet. So far, you have not lived up to any of your earlier promises. Also, you are not at all interested in reading my work, so what incentive is there for me to listen to a lecture from you?

I have brushed through Schroedinger's equations. I'm satisfied the math can be converted to work with the Aether Physics Model.

Before you go off on that, take time to learn what the Aether Physics Model is about. Schroedinger's equation, as do Maxwell's equations, describes mechanics. That is, it describes things in motion. The problem is, you have no idea what it is that is moving.

The Aether Physics Model explains the underlying structures of quantum existence. Structures are the things the mechanics apply to. You know the mechanics, I'm providing a model of the structures the mechanics apply to. Let me repeat that, again... the Aether Physics Model quantifies the underlying structures upon which the mechanics operate.

You can describe quantum mechanics until you are blue in the face, and you will still not be any more informed about the underlying structures the mechanics apply to.

So... before I listen to another lecture on quantum mechanics, and I have listened to many, you will need to take some time to understand the underlying structures I am quantifying and see how these structures relate to the mechanics you so well understand.

 

No, I'm not going to go onto other sites to look at things.
That's why we are here. To discuss things here.
If I need to go onto another site to discuss things, I might as well discuss them on that site.
That's if your site allows discussion.
No. Put up or shut up. (as arrogant people say)

The Captain Kangaroo site sounds tempting though.

 

How can I discuss 'the physics' when you provide none? Twice I've asked for you to provide derivations from base principles and twice you've given nothing more than "I'm going to use this equation someone else did". How is that a derivation from first principles? Please explain precisely how 'first principles' come into it at all?

And how can I be projecting, I have done what you failed to do and that's publish work in reputable journals and get funding to continue doing research.

What promises are those? I asked for you to justify your claims and you've failed. I can't discuss what you don't provide.

You mean you're willing to lift equations other people came up with and claim it can be derived from first principles in your work, just as you've done twice now?

None of the material you've presented derives any results from the notion of an aether so I have no reason to think you're able to explain what is moving, never mind the fact you can't provide the equations which describe the mechanics either.

You are doing nothing more than taking other people's equations and then spinning some arm waving words about how to interpret those equations, equations you can't derive yourself. If you can't derive them yourself from clearly stated assumptions about an aether then why should anyone think you have explained them? How can we trust your explanation of an equation you can't derive?

That's a flat out lie. Your complete ignorance of what a 'derivation from first principles' or 'presenting a justified argument' or what is involved in presenting scientific work demonstrates you haven't exposed yourself to much, if any, actual science. You want people to think you're doing science but anyone whose read much science can clearly see your approach is not scientific.

 

If you want to justifiably call someone a liar, start with yourself.

I may not have retained in memory as much about the Standard Model as you have, but that is because I have no need for it right now. Like I said earlier, I have acquired a substantial library of physics books, which I have read and continue to read, and I have been talking to real physicists even more important than you (if you can imagine such a thing) about the Standard Model and the APM. If you read the paper I linked to in a previous message to you, you would know who that qualified physicist was, because he was the one who encouraged me to write that and another paper.

 

Where have I lied?

And yet you have absolutely no idea what 'derivation from first principles' or 'the scientific method' are or how to justify your claims. If you'd done very much reading you'd know that even if your claims are true your presentation of them falls a long way short of what is expected of a competent physicist.

Nice projecting. Remind me of which of the two of us is claiming to have overturned mainstream physics?

You're making the common crank fallacy of thinking that because I consider your work crap then I think I'm a brilliant physicist, or that because I am confident about my knowledge then I think I know everything. No, I happen to know a lot about some things, one of which is physics, and by 'a lot' I'm comparing myself to the average person. Compared to the majority of the people in the theoretical physics academic community I'm nothing special, particularly in the area I specialised in, but that's a pretty high bar. You've come to a physics site, is it surprising some people here actually do physics as a day job and know a thing or two about it?

And? Galilean Electrodynamics is a hack 'journa'l. There's no record of any publications by a 'Dr. G Hooper' on SPIRES, likewise for P. Risby. The mention you make of them in your pdf is in the top 10 searches for their names, implying their contribution to theoretical physics is severely lacking. No papers of any kind it seems.

That electron binding essay has been on your website for almost a year, clearly you've failed to get it accepted by any reputable journal.

And how about answering my question : "Twice I've asked for you to provide derivations from base principles and twice you've given nothing more than "I'm going to use this equation someone else did". How is that a derivation from first principles? Please explain precisely how 'first principles' come into it at all?"

Are you struggling to think of an answer, seeing as you clearly haven't provided a derivation from base principles?

 

Didn't you know that there are no mention of these people in SPIRES because there is a conspiracy by all physicists in the word which consists in not mentioning real physicists that are doing real research and instead they only mention fake physicists that do fake research, that publish their fake results in peer-reviewed journals (guess who are the reviewers), that are using mathematics with fancy words.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?
:bawl

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!