Geometry of Electron Shells

Davidjayjordan said:
O.K. Here we are.. how come the atomic researchers and nuclear type researchers never mentioned this EXACT corelation betweeon Platonic Solids and shell distances. Were they holdfing back, or did they just not know these things.

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-swave.asp

[qimg]http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/atompov.gif[/qimg] It has been already stated that a sphere has got just five natural frequency modes of vibration, and each of these frequencies gives rise to the formation of a platonic standing wave structure. Each 2 dimensional face of these structures is a standing EM wave node. Here on the left, a tetrahedron is shown. You may notice this shape has got 4 Vertices, 4 Faces, and 6 Edges. Euler's characteristic, as with the other four platonics is equal to F-E+V= 4-6+4 =2. It is understood that everything that we apply for this shape will apply for the other four platonics. Each platonic, when rotated in all possible angular directions about its centre, will form two spheres, one inscribed within its faces and one circumsribed by its vertices, as shown in the diagram. The inscribed sphere, will in turn be the circumscribed sphere of a smaller nested platonic structure, and so on, until a point is reached where the actual sides of the platonic equates to the smallest possible vibrating length in space, relating to planck length.

Darn, sometimes I think I have to do all the ersearch myself.

I mean my expertise is not atomic G.M. but mathematical prophecy...

Maybe understanding the basics of geometry is much much much more beneficial than these guys years and years and years of segregated science is.

Anyway the search goes on... and it seems the Platonic Solids are very very important in understanding atoms, and nature, and the building block of creation.... which all leads to the easy to understand conclusion that there is a Creator.

TTLFTL.

Sincerely

david
Click to expand...

Total tripe loose (breaking wind)tough luck.

That is, BLOCMF, EM!:D Trolling, trolling

DJ=:bs:
 
Davidjayjordan said:
As an aside, it is interesting to see that a sixth shell if possible, and all things are possible with the Lord, theorises that it would have a electron capacity of 72 electrons it its shell.
Click to expand...

A sixth shell "if possible"? Any element past cesium has electrons in its sixth shell; anything past francium has electrons in its seventh shell.

Even the lowly hydrogen atom can have electrons in these shells in the excited state (no, that term has nothing to do with sex), as can be seen from the emission spectrum. Wavelengths of light are emitted which correspond to the transition of an electron to the second shell from the third (656 nm), fourth (486 nm), fifth (434 nm), sixth (410 nm), seventh (397 nm), and eighth (389 nm) shells.

Since you're so convinced that the shells are based on the platonic solids, please explain (using your theory) why no atom has a perfectly filled third, fourth, or fifth shell without having some electrons in higher shells.
 
Madalch said:
Since you're so convinced that the shells are based on the platonic solids, please explain (using your theory) why no atom has a perfectly filled third, fourth, or fifth shell without having some electrons in higher shells.
Click to expand...

*psst* DJD....the Aufbau principle.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Scientists don't talk about any exact correlation between platonic solids and shell distances because no such correlation exists.
Click to expand...

And also because Platonic solids are nothing more than mathematical oddities involving fairly low numbers. If you spend enough time in three-dimensional space, you'll find something that resembles or reminds you of a Platonic solid. However, there's a huge difference between similarity and correlation and an even greater distance between correlation and causation.

Even if there were repeating patterns all throughout the microcosm and macrocosm, it would be no proof at all that a higher intelligence or God had created the system. It would simply be proof that the system has those properties.

I've come to realize that I could grant every single mathematical principle DJJ spouts as true and it still would lend zero weight to the concept of a creator.

By the way, isn't it amazing that a number of any length is divisible by 9 if adding up all of its digits produces a number divisible by 9? And any number is divisible by 4 if its last two digits are divisible by 4. It doesn't mean there's a God, though.
 
Trolling trolling trolling!
Keep the bullshyte rolling!
As long as Google's polling
Yee har!
 
Don't try to understand 'em.

Just whip an' rope an' brand 'em.

Keep those fallacies rolling raw hide...
 
Zep said:
Trolling trolling trolling!
Keep the bullshyte rolling!
As long as Google's polling
Yee har!
Click to expand...

Zep, you're right again, as usual. I keep falling into pointless discussions with these peeps! However, this abyssmally stupid trog has given me the opportunity of reading some of the most wonderful physics from the experts on this forum. Maybe there's a ying and yang thing about intellectual ability? That it takes the abnormally ignorant to bring the best out of the abnormally learned?

Anyway, it seems our friend DJJ is not ready to take the next step (or the first step, actually). He either does not know that changing the definition of the atom essentially robs all the other sciences of explanations to very difficult phenomena or he cannot explain at least the few chemisty problems I presented him. Such a pity. ;)

DJJ is truly delusional. He belives that he alone has determined the true nature of the universe in contravension to the most intelligent and capable minds of our time. He also does not realize that the current model of the atom is so rigorously tested and mathematically-justified that the understanding we have of its construct would be very difficult to debunk. Certainly, "harmony of the spheres" BS isn't going to do it.

I do agree with the poster who believes this guy is a bit off his nut and should seek some professional help.

Anyway, thanks for saving me the time and aggravation of pursuing another nutter. :)
 
I will second the cheers to those who have been posting some seriously cool info here. It has been *mumble-something* years since I have studied this, and I am really enjoying the layperson's (re)introduction.

DJJ, read any of the books or sites we have been recommending? Not yet? Well, if mathematics, physics and logical rules don't apply to you, basketball rules don't apply to me. Hey look, I am dribbling with both hands! Ha ha!
 
Is there a way to nominate a person's posts in a thread as a single item? Because SchneibestIcan'tspellforbeans has been utterly fantastic.
 
Thanks, folks, I really appreciate it. I've been working on a plain-language understanding of physics for a really long time. If you like what I do, I suggest you read some of Isaac Asimov's popular science work. He is my idol when it comes to this stuff; better than I am, by a fair bit (as attested to by the popularity of his work to this day).
 
Schneibster said:
Thanks, folks, I really appreciate it. I've been working on a plain-language understanding of physics for a really long time. If you like what I do, I suggest you read some of Isaac Asimov's popular science work. He is my idol when it comes to this stuff; better than I am, by a fair bit (as attested to by the popularity of his work to this day).
Click to expand...

Hi, Schneibster --

I, for one, would absolutely love reading your work. What you've done here has helped a lot, though I have since printed it out and plan to retreat into a quiet room to read and re-read it. Have you ever gotten that sense that you understand the edges of ideas, and you keep thinking and thinking and then bam! Epiphany! I'm teetering on the edge now.

All I can really say is thank goodness I picked "sonar technician" and not, say, "hull technician". ; ) Fundamental frequencies, harmonics, and resonance all make sense to me. Still, tho, I am going to have to go think about it very hard and review my Feynman (I've got "Six Easy Pieces"). I will take your advice and check out Asimov, too. Thanks so much!

BTW, everything you're saying is MUCH more interesting than what DJJ is saying, IMHO. You actually make sense in a way that hangs together. DJJ's posts are trying to force square pegs into round holes.
 
Schneibster said:
If you like what I do, I suggest you read some of Isaac Asimov's popular science work. He is my idol when it comes to this stuff; better than I am, by a fair bit (as attested to by the popularity of his work to this day).
Click to expand...

Asimov has to take most of the blame for my being a chemist. My high school class passed his World of Carbon around like it was porn. I am very glad you are continuing his work.
notworthy.gif
 
Loss Leader said:
And also because Platonic solids are nothing more than mathematical oddities involving fairly low numbers. If you spend enough time in three-dimensional space, you'll find something that resembles or reminds you of a Platonic solid. However, there's a huge difference between similarity and correlation and an even greater distance between correlation and causation.

Even if there were repeating patterns all throughout the microcosm and macrocosm, it would be no proof at all that a higher intelligence or God had created the system. It would simply be proof that the system has those properties.

I've come to realize that I could grant every single mathematical principle DJJ spouts as true and it still would lend zero weight to the concept of a creator.

By the way, isn't it amazing that a number of any length is divisible by 9 if adding up all of its digits produces a number divisible by 9? And any number is divisible by 4 if its last two digits are divisible by 4. It doesn't mean there's a God, though.
Click to expand...

Isn't it amazing that those that haven't studied the basics think they can go further than the basics.. and that's why they get so confused by the complicated. They just can;t make connections and can;t comprehend basic geometry.
 
Djj, you improve your English first before you start telling off people for not 'getting the basics'.
 
You know I started reading the thread, and nearly started formulating an answer (VSEPR, the limit thereof, how the s,p,d orbital looks liek and why, analogy with standing wave etc...etc..). And then I saw the answer from djj.

I really really really need a kitten photo for such threads and troll like djj.
 
Aepervius said:
You know I started reading the thread, and nearly started formulating an answer (VSEPR, the limit thereof, how the s,p,d orbital looks liek and why, analogy with standing wave etc...etc..). And then I saw the answer from djj.

I really really really need a kitten photo for such threads and troll like djj.
Click to expand...

Actually, a kitten dropping a load on a DJ pronouncement would be really cool - and accurate in terms of the quality of a DJ pronouncement. Oh, DJ, there's another silly person posting on math similar to yours - but he doesn't mention dog as much - why don't you go




help him or something else useful like that.:D :jaw-dropp
 
Davidjayjordan said:
Isn't it amazing that those that haven't studied the basics think they can go further than the basics.. and that's why they get so confused by the complicated. They just can;t make connections and can;t comprehend basic geometry.
Click to expand...

This is rich. You really get the sense of a guy who has just been completely left behind by a conversation. DJJ, you can circle around the periphery, out in the cold, if you like -- but it's much warmer inside the circle. You're welcome to join us, but the initiation ritual involves realizing that you are not yet one of our intellectual peers, and taking steps (such as reading a few books, or at least Schneibster's wonderful summaries) to rectify this.

I'm not holding my breath that this is going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom