Elemental Puzzle

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

The s-subshell is spherical and farthest of its level.
The p-subshell is tri-axial and closer.
The d-subshell I'm not sure how to describe, but its electrons get even closer.
Similarly, the f-subshell electrons get closer (within a row) and are thus
closer bound to the nucleus.
Finally, the g-subshell electrons in the ninth row only get even closer
bound to the nucleus.

An over-simplification. The s-orbitals are the only ones which do not have zero electron density at the nucleus. All the others have a node at r=0.

If you don't know how to describe the l>1 orbitals, I suggest that you give a link to pictures of spherical harmonics. This one may suffice: [url/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital[/url]


Paul

[xilman]

Originally Posted by xilman

An over-simplification. The s-orbitals are the only ones which do not have zero electron density at the nucleus. All the others have a node at r=0.

If you don't know how to describe the l>1 orbitals, I suggest that you give a link to pictures of spherical harmonics. This one may suffice: [url/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital[/url]

Paul

Actually, I'm also guilty of an over-simplification, though one made very commonly.

The spherical harmonic solutions discussed above are eigenfunctions only for single electrons in spherically symmetrical potentials.

Many high-spin nuclei are very far from spherically symmetrical so even hydrogenic ions are not accurately described by spherical harmonics.

Even if the nucleus is spherically symmetric, once there are more than one electron the wave function is not separable into single-electron wavefunctions.


Paul

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

Not true.

The "ionization electron" of Fr, for instance, is in a s-shell like the other alkali metals (Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs) and Fr is chemically similar to them. Radium has two s-electrons, like the other alkaline earth metals.

There is absolutely no known reason why eka-francium and eka-radium (aka Uue and Ubn) should not have one and two 8-s valence electrons (the more common name for what you call "ionization electrons") and that is the prediction of current theoretical models.


Paul

Must interpolate here - yes, typing and thinking too fast led to that
comment. Of course both s2 and p6 electrons participate in ionization.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by XYYXF

There are no krypton oxides, but some unstable kryptonates as Cs₂KrO₄ are believed to exist at low temperatures.

Just to satisfy my probably warped sense of humor,
were these kryptonates the cause of Krypton's explosion,
and if so, are they red or green?
I mean for Superman's sake ...

[davar55]

Now bear with me, because I think I'm going to sound like a crank.
Here's how the monograph "A New Cosmology - Heart Of Reality" began:


Introduction

Cosmology is that branch of science that deals with fundamental questions
about the Universe -- its origins, its destiny, its shape, the relationships of
time and space, matter and energy. This monograph presents an overview
of a (hopefully) consistent, integrated, scientific view of cosmology.

1 Physics: R == cT.

First some fundamental preliminary questions.

How did the Universe begin?
What is the shape of the Universe?
Is the Universe steady-state or pulsating?
Is the Universe expanding or contracting?
How will the Universe end?

These will be given answers in time.

Is the Big Bang Theory of Creation correct?

No.

Scientists who support this theory ignore its inconsistencies,
and are as wrong as Creationists.
The background cosmic radiation and the Hubble red shift are
otherwise explainable within a suitable cosmology.

It's complex, but here goes.

The Universe contains all that is. It has always existed.
It will always exist. Its form and content change over time,
but it had no starting point of origin -- it couldn't.

Spatially, the Universe is finite but unbounded.
Temporally, the Universe has an unlimited past and future.
Space and Time are interconnected through Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

The Radius of the Universe (R) is constant, measuring the same from
any point in space, approximately 20 billion light-years.

The measurable Age of the Universe (T) is constant, approximately
20 billion years. Though time progresses, the measurable age of
the universe doesn't change.

The speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum (c) is constant,
approximately 3 x 10^10 cm/sec, or 1 light-year per year.

And R == cT.


Thus ends page one of my original monograph.
Plenty of open questions and challenges, I suppose.
But not beyond reasonable discussion?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by davar55

But not beyond reasonable discussion?

Davar55,

Posting only the first page is only another drib.

Yes, it is beyond reasonable discussion to expect informed commentary on a hypothesis you have not yet shown us.

Quit playing games.

Publish the whole thing.

I can think of no commendatory reason for you to refuse. Every time you string out this game you've been playing, you confirm that you do not know what science is.

If anyone's acting like a creationist, it's you, not Big Bang theorists.

[lavalamp]

Originally Posted by davar55

The Radius of the Universe (R) is constant, measuring the same from
any point in space, approximately 20 billion light-years.

The measurable Age of the Universe (T) is constant, approximately
20 billion years. Though time progresses, the measurable age of
the universe doesn't change.

Then how do you explain:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

The age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are now observing objects that are now considerably farther away than a static 13.7 billion light-years distance. The edge of the observable universe is now located about 46.5 billion light-years away.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Davar55,

Posting only the first page is only another drib.

Yes, it is beyond reasonable discussion to expect informed commentary on a hypothesis you have not yet shown us.

Quit playing games.

Publish the whole thing.

I can think of no commendatory reason for you to refuse. Every time you string out this game you've been playing, you confirm that you do not know what science is.

If anyone's acting like a creationist, it's you, not Big Bang theorists.

I'm NOT playing games and your comments are NOT fair, for the simple
reason that I have no computer copy of my monograph. It was stupidly
deleted at the location I had been working on it several years ago, and
all I have left is one working paper copy. So I'm typing as fast as I can,
making minor corrections/additions as I go along.


And I can't guarantee that you won't be disappointed by the full thing,
since most of it is just foundational.

Nevertheless, I'll continue. For what it's worth.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by lavalamp

Then how do you explain:

Simple. Space is NOT expanding. The so-called super-distant objects
are being measured at incorrect distances.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by davar55

Simple. Space is NOT expanding. The so-called super-distant objects
are being measured at incorrect distances.

You need to provide extra-ordinairy proof for this extra-ordinairy claim.

[retina]

Originally Posted by davar55

Simple. Space is NOT expanding. The so-called super-distant objects
are being measured at incorrect distances.

Then why do we see red-shift?