Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #638315 > unrolled thread

Element 123 predicted

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 13:49 -0700
    Element 123 predicted Lord Kronos Prime <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:02 -0700
      Element 123 predicted Lord Kronos Prime <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:06 -0700
        Element 123 predicted "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:26 -0700
          Element 123 predicted "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:51 -0700
            Element 123 predicted "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-30 15:09 -0700
          Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:44 -0700
        Re: Element 123 predicted poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-30 22:27 -0700
          Re: Element 123 predicted poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-06-30 22:48 -0700
            Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 08:45 -0700
              Re: Element 123 predicted poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-01 19:07 -0700
    Re: Element 123 predicted "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 13:58 -0700
      Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 16:12 -0700
        Re: Element 123 predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-02 23:44 +0000
          Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 09:30 -0700
            Re: Element 123 predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 17:58 +0000
              Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 08:57 -0700
                Re: Element 123 predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:43 +0000
        Re: Element 123 predicted "nuny@bid.nes" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 20:10 -0700
          Re: Element 123 predicted poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-06 07:39 -0700
          Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 08:55 -0700
          Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:29 -0700
    Re: Element 123 predicted Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 09:14 -0700
      Re: Element 123 predicted poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-05 17:37 -0700
      Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:05 -0700
        Re: Element 123 predicted Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:52 -0700
          Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 13:16 -0700
            Re: Element 123 predicted poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-06 22:33 -0700
            Re: Element 123 predicted Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:17 -0700
              Re: Element 123 predicted Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:53 -0700
                Re: Element 123 predicted jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 17:15 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#639109

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 5:10:55 PM UTC-10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 4:12:14 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 1:49:33 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > > Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> > > > Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> > > > 
> > > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> > > > 
> > > > It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> > > > than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> > > > predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> > > 
> > >   Why do you imply that the arrangement of nucleons affects whether an
> > > isotope is ferromagnetic?
> > 
> > The research was undertaken to answer, "Why is Iron magnetic?
> 
>   Your explanation must also explain why the platinum group metals are not.
>  
> > A sphere stacking model indicated that Iron has a shape of 
> > two loops of protons. This is unlike non-ferrous elements 
> > using the same sphere stacking style. The clear distinction
> > of geometries leads me to conclude that the shape of the
> > nucleus makes it ferrous or non-ferrous.
> > 
> > You may be aware that transformers use two loops.
> > The Iron nucleus has the shape of a transformer: two loops.
> > A transformer is a magnetic device.
> >
> > Iron is a magnetic element.
> 
>   Transformers do not require the presence of iron.
> 
>   Your nuclear "shape" concept needs verification.
> 
>   You have not explained how extremely short-range nuclear forces can influence atoms many many many nuclear diameters away.
> 
>   You have not explained why iron's magnetic properties depend on its oxidation state (a strictly electron-dependent phenomenon) and temperature.
> 
>   How does iron's temperature affect the structure of its nucleus, making it lose its magnetism when it gets too hot?
> 
>   Why is iron magnetic in some combinations with other elements but not others?
> 
>   How does chemistry affect your putative shapes of nuclei?
> 
> > Please compare the elements in this image:
> > 
> > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/nonferrous-nuclei.html
> > 
> > Figure 1 compares Copper and Manganese with Iron. You can see
> > the models of the nuclei for non-ferrous elements do not
> > have a loop shape. Copper has 29 protons, but that extra
> > proton ruins a loop that Nickel has intact.
> 
>   Yet, nickel is not permanently magnetizable, and a straight copper wire carrying current possesses a magnetic field.
> 
>   Your claim that nuclear shapes affect externally-measurable magnetism does not explain alnico or rare-earth magnets which contain no iron at all.
> 
> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

AlNiCo contains Nickel and Cobalt, so Iron is not needed for
that ferromagnetic goodness.

Neodymium magnets are 80% Iron

Samarium Cobalt magnets are mostly Cobalt, a ferromagnetic element.

Magnetism in Cobalt is caused by the nucleus having a specific shape 
that the protons make in the nucleus. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639115

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 5:10:55 PM UTC-10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 4:12:14 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 10:58:49 AM UTC-10, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 1:49:33 PM UTC-7, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > > Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> > > > Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> > > > 
> > > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> > > > 
> > > > It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> > > > than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> > > > predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> > > 
> > >   Why do you imply that the arrangement of nucleons affects whether an
> > > isotope is ferromagnetic?
> > 
> > The research was undertaken to answer, "Why is Iron magnetic?
> 
>   Your explanation must also explain why the platinum group metals are not.

The Platinum group will be resolved in a future. 
Tungsten is shown on my website.

>  
> > A sphere stacking model indicated that Iron has a shape of 
> > two loops of protons. This is unlike non-ferrous elements 
> > using the same sphere stacking style. The clear distinction
> > of geometries leads me to conclude that the shape of the
> > nucleus makes it ferrous or non-ferrous.
> > 
> > You may be aware that transformers use two loops.
> > The Iron nucleus has the shape of a transformer: two loops.
> > A transformer is a magnetic device.
> >
> > Iron is a magnetic element.
> 
>   Transformers do not require the presence of iron.

Transformers have a "shape". It is not the copper that is special, it is shape. Loops.

> 
>   Your nuclear "shape" concept needs verification.


Verification will be partially accomplished by making 3D glass bead models of
all 123 elements. Then, the predictive power of the shapes will become clear, 
as each element and its properties are related to "shape".


> 
>   You have not explained how extremely short-range nuclear forces can influence atoms many many many nuclear diameters away.

Magnetism is delivered in the 8D continuum. The sqrt(time*space) in the
dimensions 5 6 7 8 of the magnetic field H. As on my website on 123 Fo 305.


The strong nuclear force is an optional concept I will start using when gravity and the 
following are not good enough... When a neutron touches a proton, that proton will not 
repel a second proton that is touching it in a direction that is perpendicular to a line from the
first proton to the neutron. That lack of repulsion allows gravity to hold the nucleus together.


> 
>   You have not explained why iron's magnetic properties depend on its oxidation state (a strictly electron-dependent phenomenon) and temperature.


The nucleus causes electron orbitals. Electrons affect the space far from the nucleus, 
so magnetism can be suppressed by electrons in odd molecules or at hot temperatures.

> 
>   How does iron's temperature affect the structure of its nucleus, making it lose its magnetism when it gets too hot?
> 

The temperature affects the electrons, so the nucleus is isolated from temperature in 
that temp range. Electrons are involved in magnetism, they do not cause it.


>   Why is iron magnetic in some combinations with other elements but not others?

The electrons change with various elements, so magnetic effects change.

> 
>   How does chemistry affect your putative shapes of nuclei?

It does not


> 
> > Please compare the elements in this image:
> > 
> > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/nonferrous-nuclei.html
> > 
> > Figure 1 compares Copper and Manganese with Iron. You can see
> > the models of the nuclei for non-ferrous elements do not
> > have a loop shape. Copper has 29 protons, but that extra
> > proton ruins a loop that Nickel has intact.
> 
>   Yet, nickel is not permanently magnetizable, and a straight copper wire carrying current possesses a magnetic field.
> 
>   Your claim that nuclear shapes affect externally-measurable magnetism does not explain alnico or rare-earth magnets which contain no iron at all.
> 

Neodymium magnets are 78% Iron.


> 
>   Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#638906

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> 
> http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> 
> It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> I call it Ferrodine 305.
> 
> 123 Fo 305
> 
> 
> Compare it with Iron 57.
> 
> http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/iron-57.html
> 
> The sphere stacking was done with 
> garbanzo beans and elmer's glue all.

I think Jim was trying to point out a problem with the note
on the iron page that said:
"The nucleus causes ferromagnetism."

While we understand that is the electrons causing
the ferromagnetic property.

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639021

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 7:14:29 PM UTC+3, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> > Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> > 
> > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> > 
> > It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> > than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> > predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> > I call it Ferrodine 305.
> > 
> > 123 Fo 305
> > 
> > 
> > Compare it with Iron 57.
> > 
> > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/iron-57.html
> > 
> > The sphere stacking was done with 
> > garbanzo beans and elmer's glue all.
> 
> I think Jim was trying to point out a problem with the note
> on the iron page that said:
> "The nucleus causes ferromagnetism."
> 
> While we understand that is the electrons causing
> the ferromagnetic property.
> 
> ed
=======================
see my Iron 56 at my model 
you see clearly tangibly  that 
it starts with the nucleus !! 

please mote that the iron 56 nuc 
described and defined 

***is non   symmetric** !!!
what is counting are the most external 
particle orbitals 
the electron LOCATION  on it 
is only a sub cause TO MAGNETISM 
2
please not the 
'CHIN OF ORBITALS'   IN MY   MODEL

IT IS THE **LAST EXTERNAL LINK*
IN THAT CHAIN
THAT DOES THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY !!!
yet the last link
does not work '
alone !
it is the combination of 
nuclear **and** electronic combination
THAT DOES THE PROPERY OF MAGNETISM
AND!! ***NOT ONLY MAGNETISM **
======

TIA
Y.Porat
=============================

  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639111

On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 6:14:29 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> > Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> > 
> > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> > 
> > It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> > than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> > predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> > I call it Ferrodine 305.
> > 
> > 123 Fo 305
> > 
> > 
> > Compare it with Iron 57.
> > 
> > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/iron-57.html
> > 
> > The sphere stacking was done with 
> > garbanzo beans and elmer's glue all.
> 
> I think Jim was trying to point out a problem with the note
> on the iron page that said:
> "The nucleus causes ferromagnetism."
> 
> While we understand that is the electrons causing
> the ferromagnetic property.
> 
> ed

That old idea about electron spin is not independent of the nucleus. It is
just that old science did not understand magnetism, so they wrote about
the little that was understood. Like Aristotle was very persuasive
to his followers, so you are committed to incomplete theories. Progress
has been made. Try to learn new ideas, not enforce old mistakes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639120

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 6:14:29 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> > > Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> > > 
> > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> > > 
> > > It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> > > than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> > > predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> > > I call it Ferrodine 305.
> > > 
> > > 123 Fo 305
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Compare it with Iron 57.
> > > 
> > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/iron-57.html
> > > 
> > > The sphere stacking was done with 
> > > garbanzo beans and elmer's glue all.
> > 
> > I think Jim was trying to point out a problem with the note
> > on the iron page that said:
> > "The nucleus causes ferromagnetism."
> > 
> > While we understand that is the electrons causing
> > the ferromagnetic property.
> > 
> > ed
> 
> That old idea about electron spin is not independent of the nucleus. It is
> just that old science did not understand magnetism, so they wrote about
> the little that was understood. Like Aristotle was very persuasive
> to his followers, so you are committed to incomplete theories. Progress
> has been made. Try to learn new ideas, not enforce old mistakes.

Well, I see nothing here to learn. Some pictures of colored beans
glued together. Static images at best of a very dynamic condition.
Maxwell's equations work very well and don't support your theory.

And protons and neutrons are not fixed in place in the nucleus.
They really aren't solid parts themselves, since they are
actually made from quarks.

I'm willing to learn something new, but when it has some evidence.
I am not a slave to fashion, just seeking the newest thing only 
because it is new.

Physics has enough wonderful things in it already. And some new
items nearly every day that are supported by theory and experiment.

Now I'm wondering why I even bothered to reply. There is little
you show that is new, and none of it supported.

Good luck.
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639153

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 6:52:53 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 6:14:29 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > > Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> > > > Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> > > > 
> > > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> > > > 
> > > > It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> > > > than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> > > > predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> > > > I call it Ferrodine 305.
> > > > 
> > > > 123 Fo 305
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Compare it with Iron 57.
> > > > 
> > > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/iron-57.html
> > > > 
> > > > The sphere stacking was done with 
> > > > garbanzo beans and elmer's glue all.
> > > 
> > > I think Jim was trying to point out a problem with the note
> > > on the iron page that said:
> > > "The nucleus causes ferromagnetism."
> > > 
> > > While we understand that is the electrons causing
> > > the ferromagnetic property.
> > > 
> > > ed
> > 
> > That old idea about electron spin is not independent of the nucleus. It is
> > just that old science did not understand magnetism, so they wrote about
> > the little that was understood. Like Aristotle was very persuasive
> > to his followers, so you are committed to incomplete theories. Progress
> > has been made. Try to learn new ideas, not enforce old mistakes.
> 

> Well, I see nothing here to learn. Some pictures of colored beans
> glued together. Static images at best of a very dynamic condition.
> Maxwell's equations work very well and don't support your theory.
> 
> And protons and neutrons are not fixed in place in the nucleus.

I have discovered that protons and neutrons are fixed in place in the nucleus.

> They really aren't solid parts themselves,

Protons and neutrons are solid parts in a placid condition of
hydrodynamic flow of dimensions. Gravity, proton repulsion, 
neutron intervention: they are stable and dynamic only as a stationary flow.

> since they are
> actually made from quarks.

No quarks inside. Negative infinity is there.

> 
> I'm willing to learn something new, but when it has some evidence.
> I am not a slave to fashion, just seeking the newest thing only 
> because it is new.
> 
> Physics has enough wonderful things in it already. And some new
> items nearly every day that are supported by theory and experiment.
> 
> Now I'm wondering why I even bothered to reply. There is little
> you show that is new, and none of it supported.
> 
> Good luck.
> ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639266

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 11:16:25 PM UTC+3, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 6:52:53 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 12:06:00 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 6:14:29 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > > On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 4:49:33 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > > > > Some models were built of a nucleus of a heavy element.
> > > > > Here is a link to photographs of the isotope 305 proposal.
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/element-123.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > It looks similar to Iron. It has a lower atomic mass
> > > > > than would be the case if it were unstable. It is
> > > > > predicted to be stable and ferromagnetic.
> > > > > I call it Ferrodine 305.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 123 Fo 305
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Compare it with Iron 57.
> > > > > 
> > > > > http://ferronuclear.blogspot.com/p/iron-57.html
> > > > > 
> > > > > The sphere stacking was done with 
> > > > > garbanzo beans and elmer's glue all.
> > > > 
> > > > I think Jim was trying to point out a problem with the note
> > > > on the iron page that said:
> > > > "The nucleus causes ferromagnetism."
> > > > 
> > > > While we understand that is the electrons causing
> > > > the ferromagnetic property.
> > > > 
> > > > ed
> > > 
> > > That old idea about electron spin is not independent of the nucleus. It is
> > > just that old science did not understand magnetism, so they wrote about
> > > the little that was understood. Like Aristotle was very persuasive
> > > to his followers, so you are committed to incomplete theories. Progress
> > > has been made. Try to learn new ideas, not enforce old mistakes.
> > 
> 
> > Well, I see nothing here to learn. Some pictures of colored beans
> > glued together. Static images at best of a very dynamic condition.
> > Maxwell's equations work very well and don't support your theory.
> > 
> > And protons and neutrons are not fixed in place in the nucleus.
> 
> I have discovered that protons and neutrons are fixed in place in the nucleus.
> 
> > They really aren't solid parts themselves,
> 
> Protons and neutrons are solid parts in a placid condition of
> hydrodynamic flow of dimensions. Gravity, proton repulsion, 
> neutron intervention: they are stable and dynamic only as a stationary flow.
> 
> > since they are
> > actually made from quarks.
> 
> No quarks inside. Negative infinity is there.
=====
===========================================
 Dear Alan 
you are wrong at  that point !!
protons and neutrons 
are sub composed !!!!!
it is experimentally proven !!!

---by shuttering the proton  to smaller physicals  entities in the huge colliders  !!!! 

I  have some hunch (and may be more than a hunch 
that even the electron is sub composed !!!
see my
chain of orbitals system !!
TIA
Y.Porat
========================



 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639301

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 4:16:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 6:52:53 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
[]
> > And protons and neutrons are not fixed in place in the nucleus.
> 
> I have discovered that protons and neutrons are fixed in place in the nucleus.

Whoa. Now if you can prove that, you have got a Nobel on the way.

> 
> > They really aren't solid parts themselves,
> 
> Protons and neutrons are solid parts in a placid condition of
> hydrodynamic flow of dimensions. Gravity, proton repulsion, 
> neutron intervention: they are stable and dynamic only as a stationary flow.

Stationary flow? What the hell is that?

> 
> > since they are
> > actually made from quarks.
> 
> No quarks inside. Negative infinity is there.

Another Nobel idea if you can prove it.
but since it violates experimental data, ...
well, you know how it is.


Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639307

On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 5:17:33 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 4:16:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 6:52:53 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> []
> > > And protons and neutrons are not fixed in place in the nucleus.
> > 
> > I have discovered that protons and neutrons are fixed in place in the nucleus.
> 
> Whoa. Now if you can prove that, you have got a Nobel on the way.
> 
> > 
> > > They really aren't solid parts themselves,
> > 
> > Protons and neutrons are solid parts in a placid condition of
> > hydrodynamic flow of dimensions. Gravity, proton repulsion, 
> > neutron intervention: they are stable and dynamic only as a stationary flow.
> 
> Stationary flow? What the hell is that?
> 
> > 
> > > since they are
> > > actually made from quarks.
> > 
> > No quarks inside. Negative infinity is there.
> 
> Another Nobel idea if you can prove it.
> but since it violates experimental data, ...
> well, you know how it is.
> 
> 
> Ed

Proof is on the way. When element 123 is synthesized
and it is stable, and it is not radioactive, and
it has an atomic weight of 305, then proof will be
delivered.

Until 123 Fo 305 is synthesized, there are several other
persuasive proofs already listed:

Ferromagnetic element geometry
Cerium and Iron spark when struck
Neutron absorption geometry of nucleus
Non-ferromagnetic element geometry

Proof is abundant because the theory is realistic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#639314

Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 5:17:33 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 4:16:25 PM UTC-4, Alan Folmsbee wrote:
>> > On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 6:52:53 AM UTC-10, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> []
>> > > And protons and neutrons are not fixed in place in the nucleus.
>> > 
>> > I have discovered that protons and neutrons are fixed in place in the nucleus.
>> 
>> Whoa. Now if you can prove that, you have got a Nobel on the way.
>> 
>> > 
>> > > They really aren't solid parts themselves,
>> > 
>> > Protons and neutrons are solid parts in a placid condition of
>> > hydrodynamic flow of dimensions. Gravity, proton repulsion, 
>> > neutron intervention: they are stable and dynamic only as a stationary flow.
>> 
>> Stationary flow? What the hell is that?
>> 
>> > 
>> > > since they are
>> > > actually made from quarks.
>> > 
>> > No quarks inside. Negative infinity is there.
>> 
>> Another Nobel idea if you can prove it.
>> but since it violates experimental data, ...
>> well, you know how it is.
>> 
>> 
>> Ed
> 
> Proof is on the way. When element 123 is synthesized
> and it is stable, and it is not radioactive, and
> it has an atomic weight of 305, then proof will be
> delivered.

Along with opera singing flying pigs.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web