Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
??? How can atoms have molecular volume? That's like wondering how many houses are in a brick.
Two New Periodic Tables of Elements
- Thread starter Aether Wizard
- Start date
Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
Are you impatient, or what? I got up at 4:30am, traveled two hours to spend a full day at a meeting, drove two hours back and have to get ready to do it again, tomorrow. When I said it will be a few days, that is what I meant.
You have responded to others in the meantime. How many days do you think it you will take to answer a basic question about your tables?
Take your time. I'm happy to wait.
Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
Learn physics would be my suggestion for you. If you read the page you linked to, they were talking about atomic volume, not molecular volume. There's a big difference, as molecules and atoms are two different orders of reality.
Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
I responded to the others because it was a conversational response. You asked me to update my web site with more information.
I have updated the web site. But the answer to your question lies in your own admission that you didn't take the time to look closely at the tables, themselves. A 16MB file takes less than a minute to download unless you are still on dialup. You can download in the background while reading something else. If I didn't provide the file in such detail, other people would have complained the table was too difficult to read or required the purchase of the print version. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
The Vajra table is ordered by electron orbitals. Each vertical band corresponds to the s, p, d, and f orbitals. The orbitals fill according to the shells and bands. There may be several bands in a shell. The first band in the shell to fill are the two s orbitals, followed by the f, d, and p bands in that order, so far as the orbitals exist within a shell. The p band is always the last to fill. When the p band fills then that side of the atoms is full of electrons and filling begins on the opposite side. There is a clear dipole structure in the fill pattern. All of this is self-evident from just looking at the Vajra table.
The Pauling Spheron Periodic Table also has a self-evident explanation. The three main structures M, C, and I represent the mantle, core, and inner core of Pauling's spin tables. I arranged Pauling's subshells into "a" and "b" series. The "a" series are dominant and the "b" series are inferior. The "a" series fills before the "b" series and the "a" series fills to two elements more than the corresponding "b" series. The fill order was determined by Pauling according to known atomic spins. I placed the spin fill pattern into two opposing series because logic dictated that if the electrons followed a dipole pattern then the nucleus should also. If I remember correctly, several years ago Pauling's nephew and heir told me that Pauling devised his own periodic tables, but I have not yet located them and haven't had the time to look. When I find them, I will post them along with the table I produced, and if it is (they are) the same, I will give full credit to Pauling. But as you can tell from the name I gave to the periodic table, I already acknowledge Pauling is the one who is substantially its discoverer.
well... In that case do you think you could make a chart that better illustrates the randomness that lies between the differences in volume of the individual elements with respect to their mass?
Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
Right off, no. But I do appreciate the question. It has me looking at the chart from a new perspective.
Helium and Cesium really stick out. I will give it some thought.
Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
The more I think about it, if the volume of a given element is constant then there is a physical cause for it. The physical cause must be related to the combined structures of the nucleus and electrons.
I have factored the known fundamental dimensional constants plus the fine structures and basic geometries into quantum units. There is definitely a common structure underlying physical reality.
It is possible, and likely, that there is a relatively simple formula for calculating the volumes of atoms based upon their constituent numbers of protons, neutrons, and electrons. I can see how this would also tie directly into density equations and more importantly, into volumetric oscillations.
Thanks, again, for your insight and question.
The setout of the periodic table is not done and dusted.
Nobody considers the Janet table woowoo.
Nobody considers the Janet table woowoo.
Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
That's because I'm not the one who printed it.
No that's because the Janet table is organized by physical principles and the rows and columns mean something and as a consequence, even things which were not chosen criteria for grouping, like atomic size or electronegativity, form distinct patterns across the table.
Yes, of course, that is true.
If you put the periodic table in alphabetical order for example, you do not add to the information. I did find an element I'd never heard of though, Neilsborium.
(Shouldn't that have been Neilsbohrium?)
http://periodic.lanl.gov/list1.html
But some of the problems encountered in Mendeleev's table are apparently solved by putting the elements in a spiral. A shape much loved by woo woos and nature alike.
http://allperiodictables.com/aptpages/gridlink/grid07_spiral.htm
If you put the periodic table in alphabetical order for example, you do not add to the information. I did find an element I'd never heard of though, Neilsborium.
(Shouldn't that have been Neilsbohrium?)
http://periodic.lanl.gov/list1.html
But some of the problems encountered in Mendeleev's table are apparently solved by putting the elements in a spiral. A shape much loved by woo woos and nature alike.
http://allperiodictables.com/aptpages/gridlink/grid07_spiral.htm
Aether Wizard
Registered Senior Member
You can read my electron binding energy equation and how it was developed from first principles based upon the Aether Physics Model here.
Last edited:
Your address is 'Quantum AetherDynamics Institute'? Sounds like you're doing a Myron Evans, adding fancy titles to yourself and your 'work' in order to distract from the fact you've utterly failed to provide any actual science.
Your 'work' is built on the same 'pulled it out of my backside' nonsense of about the strong force and the electromagnetic force being of the same form. Your equation for the 'strong' force is experimentally false. Your entire 'derivation' is "I read this on a philosophy page so I'm going to use it here". You clearly don't know what 'derivation' means as this is again an example of you providing no derivation what so ever.
You also demonstrate you don't understand the role of dimensionful constants, saying "However, mass is not matter and no physical meaning is attributed to
“velocity squared,” therefore there is no physical interpretation for mass times
velocity squared in the Standard Model.". The [tec]c^{2}[/tex] is a numerical conversion factor which tells you the quantities of different physical properties in terms of one another. When they have units it can be viewed as numerical factors which account for how our choice of units are not fundamental, they are historical relics chosen for convenience. 'velocity squared' doesn't need to have a physical interpretation, its not some how a problem with physics that its there in the equation.
You misrepresent the mainstream, you provide absolutely no derivations (seriously, look in an real journal and see how its done!), you haven't presented any work which involves you building on the principle of 'an aether exists'. You have clearly spent a lot of time on your website but the fact you're flogging crap and signing your address as an 'institute' despite having failed to pass any scrutiny by any reputable journal or science funding group demonstrates you're in the business of scamming as many lay persons as you can out of money.
You really need to open a book on science and see what 'presenting an argument' or 'justifying a claim' or 'deriving a result' means because twice now you're said "Here's a derivation from first principles" and twice you've failed completely to present anything close to that.
Your 'work' is built on the same 'pulled it out of my backside' nonsense of about the strong force and the electromagnetic force being of the same form. Your equation for the 'strong' force is experimentally false. Your entire 'derivation' is "I read this on a philosophy page so I'm going to use it here". You clearly don't know what 'derivation' means as this is again an example of you providing no derivation what so ever.
You also demonstrate you don't understand the role of dimensionful constants, saying "However, mass is not matter and no physical meaning is attributed to
“velocity squared,” therefore there is no physical interpretation for mass times
velocity squared in the Standard Model.". The [tec]c^{2}[/tex] is a numerical conversion factor which tells you the quantities of different physical properties in terms of one another. When they have units it can be viewed as numerical factors which account for how our choice of units are not fundamental, they are historical relics chosen for convenience. 'velocity squared' doesn't need to have a physical interpretation, its not some how a problem with physics that its there in the equation.
You misrepresent the mainstream, you provide absolutely no derivations (seriously, look in an real journal and see how its done!), you haven't presented any work which involves you building on the principle of 'an aether exists'. You have clearly spent a lot of time on your website but the fact you're flogging crap and signing your address as an 'institute' despite having failed to pass any scrutiny by any reputable journal or science funding group demonstrates you're in the business of scamming as many lay persons as you can out of money.
You really need to open a book on science and see what 'presenting an argument' or 'justifying a claim' or 'deriving a result' means because twice now you're said "Here's a derivation from first principles" and twice you've failed completely to present anything close to that.
If you check the link to the element, you'll find that the name is "bohrium", which follows the correct spelling of Bohr's surname. "Neilsborium" is doubly wrong in that Bohr's first name is "Niels" not "Neils".
I thought that such basic information would already be on your web site.
But there are more than 4 vertical columns on your table. Why?
When you say "first to fill", what do you mean? Are you saying that the f orbitals always fill before the p orbitals as atomic number increases?
Opposite side as in left-right on your table? Or what? You're not being very clear.
I think you'll find that the element was originally called Nielsbohrium, and then was dumbed down to Bohrium. Have Americans learned nothing from messing up Aluminium?
As for Neil and Niel, that's me. I once had a manager called Niel, and my inability to spell his name didn't improve my career prospects.