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

Groups > sci.physics > #679240 > unrolled thread

Why the Bohr model failed

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why the Bohr model failed john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 08:37 -0700
    Re: Why the Bohr model failed moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-31 17:41 +0000
      Re: Why the Bohr model failed Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-03-31 20:08 +0200
        Re: Why the Bohr model failed moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-02 10:52 +0000
          Re: Why the Bohr model failed Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-02 14:28 +0200
            Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 09:05 -0700
              Re: Why the Bohr model failed Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-04-02 18:27 +0200
                Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 10:25 -0700
                  Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-03 10:21 -0700
          Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 06:21 -0700
            Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-02 09:02 -0700
    Re: Why the Bohr model failed Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-03-31 14:32 -0700
      Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-03-31 19:57 -0700
        Re: Why the Bohr model failed Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-04-01 13:53 -0700
          Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-01 22:58 -0700
            Re: Why the Bohr model failed Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 20:36 +0100
              Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 17:51 -0700
              Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-15 23:32 -0700
                Re: Why the Bohr model failed poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-18 23:23 -0700

#679240 — Why the Bohr model failed

It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
 http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#679254

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
>an atom is three dimensional.

No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
into the nucleus.

>cross another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone
>has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at
>right angles synchronously.

No, it doesn't help if the electrons decide to get all retarded and
precess like that.  They would *still* radiate their energy away, and
crash into the nucleus.

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

#679263

Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
>> an atom is three dimensional.
> 
> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
> into the nucleus.

Are you sure you are not confusing it
with Rutheford's planetary model ?

As the Bohr model is the first quantum model of a hydrogen atom,
with discrete energy levels. It failed rather not to considering
various other quantum effects, but as the first try
it was quite successful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model#Shortcomings

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#679552

>Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
>>> an atom is three dimensional.
>> 
>> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
>> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
>> into the nucleus.

>Are you sure you are not confusing it
>with Rutheford's planetary model ?

No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular 
orbits around the nucleus.  Rutheford's model is shown as the classic
"atom" from Atomic whatever logos.  Bohr shows concentric circular orbits
and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them.

Both have the same fault - circular orbits.
John's precessing spinny thing also has a similar fault in a worse way:
trace the path of the electron as it gets all retarded and precesses,
you get a squiggly curve with even more acceleration, and therefore even
more radiation.

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

#679555

moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Wrote in message:
> >Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
>>>> an atom is three dimensional.
>>> 
>>> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
>>> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
>>> into the nucleus.
> 
>>Are you sure you are not confusing it
>>with Rutheford's planetary model ?
> 
> No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular 
> orbits around the nucleus.  Rutheford's model is shown as the classic
> "atom" from Atomic whatever logos.  Bohr shows concentric circular orbits
> and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them.
> 
Not on later Bohr-Sommerfeld modifications, that have ellliptic
 orbits with the same energy and different angular
 momentum.

Sure, it was obsolete when the quantum model based of 
 Schroedinger equation was created.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#679585

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 3:29:01 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Wrote in message:
> > >Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> 
> >>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
> >>>> an atom is three dimensional.
> >>> 
> >>> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
> >>> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
> >>> into the nucleus.
> > 
> >>Are you sure you are not confusing it
> >>with Rutheford's planetary model ?
> > 
> > No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular 
> > orbits around the nucleus.  Rutheford's model is shown as the classic
> > "atom" from Atomic whatever logos.  Bohr shows concentric circular orbits
> > and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them.
> > 
> Not on later Bohr-Sommerfeld modifications, that have ellliptic
>  orbits with the same energy and different angular
>  momentum.
> 
> Sure, it was obsolete when the quantum model based of 
>  Schroedinger equation was created.
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
========================
so ???!!
are there orbiting electrons in many shells 
or not
or may be the 'theory' was ''fitted ' to that ''concept'' ??!!
TIA
Y.Porat
============================

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

#679587

poraty149@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 3:29:01 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
>> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Wrote in message:
>> > >Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
>> >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>> 
>> >>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
>> >>>> an atom is three dimensional.
>> >>> 
>> >>> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
>> >>> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
>> >>> into the nucleus.
>> > 
>> >>Are you sure you are not confusing it
>> >>with Rutheford's planetary model ?
>> > 
>> > No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular 
>> > orbits around the nucleus.  Rutheford's model is shown as the classic
>> > "atom" from Atomic whatever logos.  Bohr shows concentric circular orbits
>> > and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them.
>> > 
>> Not on later Bohr-Sommerfeld modifications, that have ellliptic
>>  orbits with the same energy and different angular
>>  momentum.
>> 
>> Sure, it was obsolete when the quantum model based of 
>>  Schroedinger equation was created.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>> 
>> 
>> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
>> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> ========================
> so ???!!
> are there orbiting electrons in many shells 
> or not
> or may be the 'theory' was ''fitted ' to that ''concept'' ??!!
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> 
Yes and no, all depends on what you mean by a shell.

No, if you mean it like an onion layers, or planet-like orbits.

Yes, if you mean grouping electrons sharing the same value of 
 some quantum parameters. 

Usually is meant the quantum number n=1,2,3,4... determining the
 energy of an electron. So for an oxygen atom, 2 2s electrons + 4
 2p electrons form the common energetic shell.


Shells are just a simplification.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

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

#679594

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:27:45 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
> poraty149@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> > On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 3:29:01 PM UTC+3, Libor Striz wrote:
> >> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) Wrote in message:
> >> > >Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> >> >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >>> 
> >> >>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
> >> >>>> an atom is three dimensional.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
> >> >>> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
> >> >>> into the nucleus.
> >> > 
> >> >>Are you sure you are not confusing it
> >> >>with Rutheford's planetary model ?
> >> > 
> >> > No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular 
> >> > orbits around the nucleus.  Rutheford's model is shown as the classic
> >> > "atom" from Atomic whatever logos.  Bohr shows concentric circular orbits
> >> > and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them.
> >> > 
> >> Not on later Bohr-Sommerfeld modifications, that have ellliptic
> >>  orbits with the same energy and different angular
> >>  momentum.
> >> 
> >> Sure, it was obsolete when the quantum model based of 
> >>  Schroedinger equation was created.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> >> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> > ========================
> > so ???!!
> > are there orbiting electrons in many shells 
> > or not
> > or may be the 'theory' was ''fitted ' to that ''concept'' ??!!
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > 
> Yes and no, all depends on what you mean by a shell.
> 
> No, if you mean it like an onion layers, or planet-like orbits.
> 
> Yes, if you mean grouping electrons sharing the same value of 
>  some quantum parameters. 
> 
> Usually is meant the quantum number n=1,2,3,4... determining the
>  energy of an electron. So for an oxygen atom, 2 2s electrons + 4
>  2p electrons form the common energetic shell.
> 
> 
> Shells are just a simplification.
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
==================
let me put it more bluntly !!

THERE ARE NO MONT M ANY  ELECTRONS AROUND THE NUC !!
MOREOVER :
THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS   'AROUND THE  NUCLEUS 
ARE NOT THE NUMBER OF PROTONS IN IT !!
and you ask how come ??
the answer is :
many porotons in the nuc 
lose their  positive electric charge 
 as a result of thiere inner connections inside the nuc
( only the inner strong connections remain )
revolutionary ??
may be  !!
(if you see my my knowledge about those  inner connections ..)
and that explain why 'bigger heavier Atoms -
- are not bigger in volume !!
==================
TIA
Y.Porat

===

  

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

#679761

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 8:25:30 PM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 7:27:45 P  >  energy of an electron. So for an oxygen atom, 2 2s electrons + 4
> >  2p electrons form the common energetic shell.
> > 
> > 
> > Shells are just a simplification.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> > 
> > 
> > ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> > http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> ==================
> let me put it more bluntly !!
> 
> THERE ARE NO MONT M ANY  ELECTRONS AROUND THE NUC !!
> MOREOVER :
> THE NUMBER OF ELECTRONS   'AROUND THE  NUCLEUS 
> ARE NOT THE NUMBER OF PROTONS IN IT !!
> and you ask how come ??
> the answer is :
> many porotons in the nuc 
> lose their  positive electric charge 
>  as a result of thiere inner connections inside the nuc
> ( only the inner strong connections remain )
> revolutionary ??
> may be  !!
> (if you see my my knowledge about those  inner connections ..)
> and that explain why 'bigger heavier Atoms -
> - are not bigger in volume !!
> ==================
> TIA
> Y.Porat> 
==============================
now i have another evidence  rove/
that the Bohr model is retard :
no electron orbiting 
the sun and planet model is infantile !!
electrons are governed by nuclear structure
ie have a direct connection to te nuc :
one of my unprecedented findings is that
the geologic clock ''
Kalium   Argon and Calcium  
are A CLOSED ** nuclear family !!

they have a very specific ''peculiar'' basic 'skeleton

THAT IS COMMON TO ALL OF THE 3  WHILE MINOR 'spontaneous' RAdIOACTIVE CHANGES OF IT
IS TRANSFER  ONE TO ANOTHER 
only my model can show it as'' on your palm of your hand'' 
people  who got my book (not only the abstract )can see it

similarly about the'' Archaeological clock''
the BOHR   mode; can  not even dream about such a finding    
=
TIA
Y.Porat
================================
 
 

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

#679558

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:52:32 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> >> 
> >>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
> >>> an atom is three dimensional.
> >> 
> >> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
> >> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
> >> into the nucleus.
> 
> >Are you sure you are not confusing it
> >with Rutheford's planetary model ?
> 
> No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular 
> orbits around the nucleus.  Rutheford's model is shown as the classic
> "atom" from Atomic whatever logos.  Bohr shows concentric circular orbits
> and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them.
> 
> Both have the same fault - circular orbits.
> John's precessing spinny thing also has a similar fault in a worse way:
> trace the path of the electron as it gets all retarded and precesses,
> you get a squiggly curve with even more acceleration, and therefore even
> more radiation.
==========================
had you seen and understood my  tables
2 and 3 
you will neglect the 
story'' of many orbits  more inneriner and more 'outer'  outer 
with different distances from the nuc !!
take for instance the 
elements 
Al   Ag and    Gold 
all of them have**** more or less the same volume** !!
even though they are very different in Atomic number 

 provided that you know that
specific weight= is weight per unit volume 
so
volume is wight /per specific weight ==is VOLUME !!!
so  no many shells and   no many   ''schmels ''
no Many shell in different  distances 
see and try to understand  it
 provided  you are able to do it ....!
i wonder ! though a secondary student could understand it ...
provided as well that he is not blocked on parroting others 
==
see
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract

and that is only the ABSTRACT !!!!!  OF  BOOK 
that Moroney and Draper and some others have   COPY OF THAT BOOK !!

--an historic breakthrough  model  
from more than 25 years ago 
-----
TIA
Y.Porat
==============================

 

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

#679584

On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 4:22:00 PM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 1:52:32 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >Dne 31/03/2018 v 19:41 Michael Moroney napsal(a):
> > >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> 
> > >>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and 
> > >>> an atom is three dimensional.
> > >> 
> > >> No, John, the Bohr Model is a failure because an electron going round and
> > >> round like a planet in its orbit would radiate its energy away, and crash
> > >> into the nucleus.
> > 
> > >Are you sure you are not confusing it
> > >with Rutheford's planetary model ?
> > 
> > No. Both the Rutheford and Bohr model show the electrons in circular 
> > orbits around the nucleus.  Rutheford's model is shown as the classic
> > "atom" from Atomic whatever logos.  Bohr shows concentric circular orbits
> > and emphasizes the jumps of energy between them.
> > 
> > Both have the same fault - circular orbits.
> > John's precessing spinny thing also has a similar fault in a worse way:
> > trace the path of the electron as it gets all retarded and precesses,
> > you get a squiggly curve with even more acceleration, and therefore even
> > more radiation.
> ==========================
> had you seen and understood my  tables
> 2 and 3 
> you will neglect the 
> story'' of many orbits  more inneriner and more 'outer'  outer 
> with different distances from the nuc !!
> take for instance the 
> elements 
> Al   Ag and    Gold 
> all of them have**** more or less the same volume** !!
> even though they are very different in Atomic number 
> 
>  provided that you know that
> specific weight= is weight per unit volume 
> so
> volume is wight /per specific weight ==is VOLUME !!!
> so  no many shells and   no many   ''schmels ''
> no Many shell in different  distances 
> see and try to understand  it
>  provided  you are able to do it ....!
> i wonder ! though a secondary student could understand it ...
> provided as well that he is not blocked on parroting others 
> ==
> see
> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
> 
> and that is only the ABSTRACT !!!!!  OF  BOOK 
> that Moroney and Draper and some others have   COPY OF THAT BOOK !!
> 
> --an historic breakthrough  model  
> from more than 25 years ago 
> -----
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ==============================

and more {:-{
Moroney saied that he saw an experiment 
in which ''curved lines' from  emitted electrons ''from the atom'' ..

that is a masterpiece of**** biased**  miss understanding 

because  electron that was  emmited from the Atom 
**does not belong anymore* to the Atom
and tell nothing about orbiting electrons  
  
in  the Atom !!! 
====
Y.Porat
=================
 

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

#679279

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
> This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
>  http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF


More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!

Double-A

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

#679344

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
> > This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
> >  http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF
> 
> 
> More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
> 
> Double-A
===============================================
(:-)
see better much more advanced and innovative 
the y Porat model
Bohr at his times  could not know
what we can know  now -at  our times!!
----------------------------------------  
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract 
TIA
Y.Porat
==========

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

#679471

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:57:08 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
> > > This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
> > >  http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF
> > 
> > 
> > More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
> > 
> > Double-A
> ===============================================
> (:-)
> see better much more advanced and innovative 
> the y Porat model
> Bohr at his times  could not know
> what we can know  now -at  our times!!
> ----------------------------------------  
> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract 
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ==========


You have put a lot of thought into that, haven't you?  But why should we think it is anymore realistic than string theory?

Double-A

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

#679537

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:53:20 PM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:57:08 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > > On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > > > It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
> > > > This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
> > > >  http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF
> > > 
> > > 
> > > More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
> > > 
> > > Double-A
> > ===============================================
> > (:-)
> > see better much more advanced and innovative 
> > the y Porat model
> > Bohr at his times  could not know
> > what we can know  now -at  our times!!
> > ----------------------------------------  
> > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract 
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ==========
> 
> 
> You have put a lot of thought into that, haven't you?  But why should we think it is anymore realistic than string theory?
> 
> Double-A
==========================
had you got my book ie
not only its abstract
you would see there
unprecedented cross and double  trippes cross verifications
to things  you could not dream that any one could explain 
for instance 
we have the geologic clcok ''
ie 
the radioactive elements 

kalium argon and calcium 
are involved 
in a very slow process of  ONE  !!!radioactive  proces 
they are not found in just **one raw** of the periodic (Mendeleev table 
thy are in different places 
now 
listen carefully?
waht i found id that

ALL OF THEM HAS THE **SAME  BASIC NUCLEAR SKELETON !!

unprecedented !!
all of them are some closed family !!!!
(even not on e the same mendeleev table raw 
butone afterther other by periodic number ))
that small (minor ) radioactive process 
that take some known time 
is connecting all of them to one basic 'family!!
unprecedented and never before explained 
except my model
----
a similar phenomenon
with the'' Archaeological clock ' 
all of them has a basic'' peculiar'' nuclear ''skeleton'
that only my model is involved in it !
ie 
the elements Carbon 14 is transformed to 

Carbon 12 !!
==
just 2 examples !
there are others as well 
good enough ??

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

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

#681147

On 02/04/2018 06:58, poraty149@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:53:20 PM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:57:08 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
>>>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
>>>>> This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
>>>>>   http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF

A more interesting question is why the Bohr model worked so well,
even to the extent on having to allow the the motion of the nucleus.
A triumph of classical Newtonian reasoning in correctly giving:-
	
	The 'reduced mass' of the electron = m*M/(M+m)
.
even as electrons became a somewhat nebulous thing eh!

Now i know that mechanics of the quantum variety will tell us that these 
days it is all well understood by QM, but it seems very odd to me that 
such a simple series should have such a complicated explanation. Also 
although QM never tire of telling us what a successful theory it is,
i haven't seen very convincing plots of theoretical versus experimental
plots of line spectra of multi-electron atoms and molecules.


>>>> More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
>>>>
>>>> Double-A
>>> ===============================================
>>> (:-)
>>> see better much more advanced and innovative
>>> the y Porat model
>>> Bohr at his times  could not know
>>> what we can know  now -at  our times!!
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
>>> TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> ==========
>>
>>
>> You have put a lot of thought into that, haven't you?  But why should we think it is anymore realistic than string theory?
>>
>> Double-A
> ==========================
> had you got my book ie
> not only its abstract
> you would see there
> unprecedented cross and double  trippes cross verifications
> to things  you could not dream that any one could explain
> for instance
> we have the geologic clcok ''
> ie
> the radioactive elements
> 
> kalium argon and calcium
> are involved
> in a very slow process of  ONE  !!!radioactive  proces
> they are not found in just **one raw** of the periodic (Mendeleev table
> thy are in different places
> now
> listen carefully?
> waht i found id that
> 
> ALL OF THEM HAS THE **SAME  BASIC NUCLEAR SKELETON !!
> 
> unprecedented !!
> all of them are some closed family !!!!
> (even not on e the same mendeleev table raw
> butone afterther other by periodic number ))
> that small (minor ) radioactive process
> that take some known time
> is connecting all of them to one basic 'family!!
> unprecedented and never before explained
> except my model
> ----
> a similar phenomenon
> with the'' Archaeological clock '
> all of them has a basic'' peculiar'' nuclear ''skeleton'
> that only my model is involved in it !
> ie
> the elements Carbon 14 is transformed to
> 
> Carbon 12 !!
> ==
> just 2 examples !
> there are others as well
> good enough ??
> 
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> =============================


Not sure it is "good enough" Mr. Porat, but if you can predict the line 
spectrum of Carbon 12, or 14, or Calcium, or Copper, or anything, (at 
some specified temperature and pressure), better (or even more simply) 
than QM, then that would be "good enough" for me eh!

keith atein

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

#681177

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:36:33 PM UTC+3, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 02/04/2018 06:58, poraty149@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:53:20 PM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> >> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:57:08 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> >>>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional.

============================
NOTHING IN OUR WORLD IS NOT 2 DIMESTIONAL !!indeed 3 dimensional and not 2 dimensional !!
EVEN A LINE THAT YOU DRAW ON A PAPER 
IS NOT** 2 DIMENSINAL !!!
AND EVENJUST BY THAT 
THE BOHR MODEL ISAT LEAST 00 CRIPPLED 
2
see my able 2 and 3 at my abstract 
even a heavy Atom is quite the volume as a light one !!!
the volume of
AL     Ag  and GOLD

are more or less 
-the same volume !!
3
how can a heavy Atom 
control 92 electrons  with 'remote control 
so accurate without loosing a single electron ??!!

4
ow can a fast rotating electron
make a connection
with another Atom  like or not like
itself 
5
how can all those rotating electrons 
crate 
a stable 3D mesh    of a crystal ??
that has a 3D accurate structure ??
etc etc etc 
==5
indeed even my model 
has to invest more study 
to deal with  your spectrum issue 
I never even started to deal with it 
it needs more much  study about it

5

just keep in mind that 
the mathematical  formula
of a rotating object 
are exactly as those  of 
a vibrating**    object !!
(I was learning about it 
as a structural  engineer ..
6
see again my 
'chain of orbitals' system !!

(t reminds the ''string theory'') 
etc etc  

7 
thanks for your questions 
8
what you see in my abstract

IS JUST AN   ABSTARCT -OF A WHOLE  BOOK !!! 
--

see again :
http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract 
===================
TIA
Y.Porat
====================   

 He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
> >>>>> This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
> >>>>>   http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF
> 
> A more interesting question is why the Bohr model worked so well,
> even to the extent on having to allow the the motion of the nucleus.
> A triumph of classical Newtonian reasoning in correctly giving:-
> 	
> 	The 'reduced mass' of the electron = m*M/(M+m)
> .
> even as electrons became a somewhat nebulous thing eh!
> 
> Now i know that mechanics of the quantum variety will tell us that these 
> days it is all well understood by QM, but it seems very odd to me that 
> such a simple series should have such a complicated explanation. Also 
> although QM never tire of telling us what a successful theory it is,
> i haven't seen very convincing plots of theoretical versus experimental
> plots of line spectra of multi-electron atoms and molecules.
> 
> 
> >>>> More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
> >>>>
> >>>> Double-A
> >>> ===============================================
> >>> (:-)
> >>> see better much more advanced and innovative
> >>> the y Porat model
> >>> Bohr at his times  could not know
> >>> what we can know  now -at  our times!!
> >>> ----------------------------------------
> >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
> >>> TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> ==========
> >>
> >>
> >> You have put a lot of thought into that, haven't you?  But why should we think it is anymore realistic than string theory?
> >>
> >> Double-A
> > ==========================
> > had you got my book ie
> > not only its abstract
> > you would see there
> > unprecedented cross and double  trippes cross verifications
> > to things  you could not dream that any one could explain
> > for instance
> > we have the geologic clcok ''
> > ie
> > the radioactive elements
> > 
> > kalium argon and calcium
> > are involved
> > in a very slow process of  ONE  !!!radioactive  proces
> > they are not found in just **one raw** of the periodic (Mendeleev table
> > thy are in different places
> > now
> > listen carefully?
> > waht i found id that
> > 
> > ALL OF THEM HAS THE **SAME  BASIC NUCLEAR SKELETON !!
> > 
> > unprecedented !!
> > all of them are some closed family !!!!
> > (even not on e the same mendeleev table raw
> > butone afterther other by periodic number ))
> > that small (minor ) radioactive process
> > that take some known time
> > is connecting all of them to one basic 'family!!
> > unprecedented and never before explained
> > except my model
> > ----
> > a similar phenomenon
> > with the'' Archaeological clock '
> > all of them has a basic'' peculiar'' nuclear ''skeleton'
> > that only my model is involved in it !
> > ie
> > the elements Carbon 14 is transformed to
> > 
> > Carbon 12 !!
> > ==
> > just 2 examples !
> > there are others as well
> > good enough ??
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > =============================
> 
> 
> Not sure it is "good enough" Mr. Porat, but if you can predict the line 
> spectrum of Carbon 12, or 14, or Calcium, or Copper, or anything, (at 
> some specified temperature and pressure), better (or even more simply) 
> than QM, then that would be "good enough" for me eh!
> 
> keith atein

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

#681212

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:36:33 PM UTC+3, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 02/04/2018 06:58, poraty149@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:53:20 PM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> >> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:57:08 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> >>>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
> >>>>> This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
> >>>>>   http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF
> 
> A more interesting question is why the Bohr model worked so well,
> even to the extent on having to allow the the motion of the nucleus.
> A triumph of classical Newtonian reasoning in correctly giving:-
> 	
> 	The 'reduced mass' of the electron = m*M/(M+m)
> .
> even as electrons became a somewhat nebulous thing eh!
> 
> Now i know that mechanics of the quantum variety will tell us that these 
> days it is all well understood by QM, but it seems very odd to me that 
> such a simple series should have such a complicated explanation. Also 
> although QM never tire of telling us what a successful theory it is,
> i haven't seen very convincing plots of theoretical versus experimental
> plots of line spectra of multi-electron atoms and molecules.
> 
> 
> >>>> More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
> >>>>
> >>>> Double-A
> >>> ===============================================
> >>> (:-)
> >>> see better much more advanced and innovative
> >>> the y Porat model
> >>> Bohr at his times  could not know
> >>> what we can know  now -at  our times!!
> >>> ----------------------------------------
> >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
> >>> TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> ==========
> >>
> >>
> >> You have put a lot of thought into that, haven't you?  But why should we think it is anymore realistic than string theory?
> >>
> >> Double-A
> > ==========================
> > had you got my book ie
> > not only its abstract
> > you would see there
> > unprecedented cross and double  trippes cross verifications
> > to things  you could not dream that any one could explain
> > for instance
> > we have the geologic clcok ''
> > ie
> > the radioactive elements
> > 
> > kalium argon and calcium
> > are involved
> > in a very slow process of  ONE  !!!radioactive  proces
> > they are not found in just **one raw** of the periodic (Mendeleev table
> > thy are in different places
> > now
> > listen carefully?
> > waht i found id that
> > 
> > ALL OF THEM HAS THE **SAME  BASIC NUCLEAR SKELETON !!
> > 
> > unprecedented !!
> > all of them are some closed family !!!!
> > (even not on e the same mendeleev table raw
> > butone afterther other by periodic number ))
> > that small (minor ) radioactive process
> > that take some known time
> > is connecting all of them to one basic 'family!!
> > unprecedented and never before explained
> > except my model
> > ----
> > a similar phenomenon
> > with the'' Archaeological clock '
> > all of them has a basic'' peculiar'' nuclear ''skeleton'
> > that only my model is involved in it !
> > ie
> > the elements Carbon 14 is transformed to
> > 
> > Carbon 12 !!
> > ==
> > just 2 examples !
> > there are others as well
> > good enough ??
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > =============================
> 
> 
> Not sure it is "good enough" Mr. Porat, but if you can predict the line 
> spectrum of Carbon 12, or 14, or Calcium, or Copper, or anything, (at 
> some specified temperature and pressure), better (or even more simply) 
> than QM, then that would be "good enough" for me eh!
> 
> keith atein
=======================
Mrs.  Atein 

are you sure that Q m could resolved /decode
the spectrum lines of
all the 92 elements of the periodic table ??
(including isotopes  ??!!)

I bet my head 
that they will never do it !!
it is impossible with the Bohr  model 
because it is far far from reality 

NOT EVEN  CLOSE TO THAT !!!!
2
I think that even for the few that elements  you mentioned
they
''fitted **' the known experimentally 
to their theory !!

sort of 
first shooting the arrow 
and only then marked a red circle around the hit point ...
 
TIA
Y.Porat
===============
 

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

#681644

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:32:53 AM UTC+3, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 10:36:33 PM UTC+3, Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 02/04/2018 06:58, poraty149@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 11:53:20 PM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 7:57:08 PM UTC-7, pora...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 12:32:36 AM UTC+3, Double-A wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 8:37:31 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> > >>>>> It failed quite simply because a circular orbital is two dimensional, and an atom is three dimensional. He tried to build out his atom by then putting other circles at various angles, forgetting that in his dream the electrons were connected by ribbons to the Center, so as soon as you put one path across another it's bye-bye ribbons. To keep the ribbons attached, everyone has to go the same way around the Center, while the whole Center turns at right angles synchronously.
> > >>>>> This is the orbital that keeps the ribbons attached:
> > >>>>>   http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/2electronorbital.GIF
> > 
> > A more interesting question is why the Bohr model worked so well,
> > even to the extent on having to allow the the motion of the nucleus.
> > A triumph of classical Newtonian reasoning in correctly giving:-
> > 	
> > 	The 'reduced mass' of the electron = m*M/(M+m)
> > .
> > even as electrons became a somewhat nebulous thing eh!
> > 
> > Now i know that mechanics of the quantum variety will tell us that these 
> > days it is all well understood by QM, but it seems very odd to me that 
> > such a simple series should have such a complicated explanation. Also 
> > although QM never tire of telling us what a successful theory it is,
> > i haven't seen very convincing plots of theoretical versus experimental
> > plots of line spectra of multi-electron atoms and molecules.
> > 
> > 
> > >>>> More likely it failed because it was just too Bohring!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Double-A
> > >>> ===============================================
> > >>> (:-)
> > >>> see better much more advanced and innovative
> > >>> the y Porat model
> > >>> Bohr at his times  could not know
> > >>> what we can know  now -at  our times!!
> > >>> ----------------------------------------
> > >>> http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
> > >>> TIA
> > >>> Y.Porat
> > >>> ==========
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> You have put a lot of thought into that, haven't you?  But why should we think it is anymore realistic than string theory?
> > >>
> > >> Double-A
> > > ==========================
> > > had you got my book ie
> > > not only its abstract
> > > you would see there
> > > unprecedented cross and double  trippes cross verifications
> > > to things  you could not dream that any one could explain
> > > for instance
> > > we have the geologic clcok ''
> > > ie
> > > the radioactive elements
> > > 
> > > kalium argon and calcium
> > > are involved
> > > in a very slow process of  ONE  !!!radioactive  proces
> > > they are not found in just **one raw** of the periodic (Mendeleev table
> > > thy are in different places
> > > now
> > > listen carefully?
> > > waht i found id that
> > > 
> > > ALL OF THEM HAS THE **SAME  BASIC NUCLEAR SKELETON !!
> > > 
> > > unprecedented !!
> > > all of them are some closed family !!!!
> > > (even not on e the same mendeleev table raw
> > > butone afterther other by periodic number ))
> > > that small (minor ) radioactive process
> > > that take some known time
> > > is connecting all of them to one basic 'family!!
> > > unprecedented and never before explained
> > > except my model
> > > ----
> > > a similar phenomenon
> > > with the'' Archaeological clock '
> > > all of them has a basic'' peculiar'' nuclear ''skeleton'
> > > that only my model is involved in it !
> > > ie
> > > the elements Carbon 14 is transformed to
> > > 
> > > Carbon 12 !!
> > > ==
> > > just 2 examples !
> > > there are others as well
> > > good enough ??
> > > 
> > > TIA
> > > Y.Porat
> > > =============================
> > 
> > 
> > Not sure it is "good enough" Mr. Porat, but if you can predict the line 
> > spectrum of Carbon 12, or 14, or Calcium, or Copper, or anything, (at 
> > some specified temperature and pressure), better (or even more simply) 
> > than QM, then that would be "good enough" for me eh!
> > 
> > keith atein
> =======================
> Mrs.  Atein 
> 
> are you sure that Q m could resolved /decode
> the spectrum lines of
> all the 92 elements of the periodic table ??
> (including isotopes  ??!!)
> 
> I bet my head 
> that they will never do it !!
> it is impossible with the Bohr  model 
> because it is far far from reality 
> 
> NOT EVEN  CLOSE TO THAT !!!!
> 2
> I think that even for the few that elements  you mentioned
> they
> ''fitted **' the known experimentally 
> to their theory !!
> 
> sort of 
> first shooting the arrow 
> and only then marked a red circle around the hit point ...
>  
> TIA
> Y.Porat
>
 ====================================
a few years ago I suggested 
the ***MACHINE GUN  BULLETS ****MOEEL for photons 

I think it is better than the TRAIN '' MODEL 
IN Which ALL /VAGONS'' ' ARE CONNECTET TO EACH OTHER !!

if asked 
I will   explain 
=====
TIA
Y.Porat
=====================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web