elas

A report on: http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/ChemScience/Volume/2010/11/Extended_elements.asp contains the following statement: “Now Pekka Pyykkö1 at the University of Helsinki has used a highly accurate computational model to predict electronic structures and therefore the periodic table positions of elements up to proton number 172 - far beyond the limit of elements that scientists can currently synthesise”. 1A suggested periodic table up to Z 172, based on Dirac–Fock calculations on atoms and ions Pekka Pyykkö, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010 DOI: 10.1039/c0cp01575j Following on from a debate on: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48561-composite-fermions-as-a-foundation-of-the-periodic-table/page__p__542912__fromsearch__1#entry542912 the proposal was tidied up and published on: http://6951759periodictablepdf.blogspot.com/2010/10/periodic-table.html As recommended by insane alien. The method of predicting a new electron shell given in the blog, does not require a “highly accurate computational model” it shows that it is a matter of extreme simplicity as predicted by Newton: It is to the glory of all God’s work, that they be done with great simplicity Isaac Newton All that is required is an extension of the table shown in the box (3, 5, 7, 9): I will do the full extension this weekend.

Try the pdf downloads on: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=798&Itemid=766&p=presentations&with_msl=true&subject_id=8&lecture_id=8568 and read The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin particularly the last five chapters. Using 'BBC I Player' watch "Horizon:What happened before the Big Bang" (should be available for next five days). With regard to the mention of the vacuum chamber note that no mention is made of gravitons or neutrinos, which rather makes a mockery of some of the claims. Quantum Physics is a non-causal Mathematical Prediction Theory, the search for a causal-theory is on-going, but as Smolin explains the search is not only ignored by QT experts (Smolin is a leading QT theorist), but is actively rejected in order to preserve the status quo. This, as Smolin explains, is the sad current situation, because no one denies the accuracy of QT, but far to many people deny the need for an underpinning causal theory.

Your ref. is to the table I used, on checking I can find only 9 systems with 3 or more planets, perhaps you are including epsilon Eridani with 3 quotes in the table, but no data is given for the two asteroid belts. I take the view that the best use should be made of the available data in seeking to find a pointer to possible solutions, only time will tell if that is right or wrong. But note that this is one (rare) instance where astronomers using the Titius-Bode rule would make the same prediction as I make; the difference being that there is no end to Titius-Bode sequence of predictions, whereas I show that the predicted planet is the outermost planet. It should also be noted that Titius-Bode originated from one planetary system (i.e. the solar system); by comparison having nine planetary systems to work with is an absolute luxury.

I have used all the known planetary systems with three or more planets.

The wikipedia explanation of Benford's Law includes the following: This distribution of first digits arises whenever a set of values has logarithms that are distributed uniformly, as is approximately the case with many measurements of real-world values. So why did I have to fill in two gaps with predictions to obtain the approximate case? or could it be that Benford's Law enables the making of the predictions? Thanks for pointing out the gaps; at a glance, a quick check reveals that removing the gaps reduces the margins of error; but I will need to do a complete revision of the graph table to be sure of that.

No, not right, there is no reason why ordering a data set should result in a straight line rather than a curved line; indeed as I have already pointed out; in standard (non-logarithmic) form the result is a compression graph. What I did was to notice certain similarities between my explanation of atomic structure and planetary positions, but the oblique straight line was missing; installing the straight line necessitated the making of two predictions one of which turned out to already exist in the form of a supposed twin star the other remains to be proven.

Yes and yes again Replies are read by more than one person and I am entitled to give the reasons for my reply; the use of the term paranoia displays a certain bias in your thinking, this is a debate not just an examination. History is an inportant part of my story that in a minor way is reflected on a higher scale in the last five chapters of Lee Smolin's book The Trouble with Quantum Physics. In trying to restrict the debate to your parameters you are guilty of the very behaviour that Smolin finds unaceptable. The Table of Elements was built on mass values and chemical similarities, in this case I am using field size and wave length. Unfortunately forum rules prevent the inclusion of the wave aspect so the cause of my questions cannot be fully explained, but there is a physical signicance to my graph that is explained on forums I am not allowed to refer to. Please keep in mind that I opened this forum seeking information that will help me to go forward, it was never my intention to put forward a completed work, discussion of my work came in response to replies. I hope the following answers your question. The prediction for Gl876 is mine, the prediction for 55rho1 is that of the observing astronomers:

My whole aim over 21 years has been the pursuit of simplicity (as predicted by Newton), it is not just the straight line that is significant; it is that once arranged in this manner one can draw on similarities with the field structure of atoms. If I go any further than that this forum will be moved; if I give a reference to other forums I have started I will receive a caution. Therefore a complete reply to your question requires you to conduct a search without my providing references. In the days of the Theory Development forum things were different, but that golden age has past thanks to the behaviour of people whose membership should simply have been cancelled, but instead the forum was closed now, as far as I am aware; I am the only surviving member from the Theory Development subscribers. Having said that it should be remembered that this is a theory under development, I am seeking information and constructive criticism that will allow me to go forward (that is how all my work has progressed), and I am not claiming to be presenting a finished product. Only my work on the Table of Elements is complete; my work on particles is a hypothesis which I can take no further and my work on planets is just starting. There is a wide gulf between a Master of Physics and a poorly educated amateur pursuing a simple understanding of nature, but I think I know what you require and will do my best to produce a mathematically correct reply. I have to start as always, by looking up the professional term i.e. error analysis.

The systems are arranged in order of largest semi-major axis of each system. In my opinion there is no known reason why this should appear as a straight line in either metric or logarithmic form. If a zero line is drawn along the bottom of the graph to represent the stellar body position then we have a pattern that is similar to one I have produced using electrons and atomic nuclei. The ultimate goal being to show that nature uses a repetitive wave structure on all levels of compaction. In standard graph form, a line drawn between maximum semi-major axis is similar compession lines that can also be produced from atomic structure; while observation of the shortest semi-major axis (in logarithmic form) shows that the shortest semi-major axis occur in three distinct bands just as is observed in atomic structure. Of course, it is much to early to put any great an emphasis on what could be pure coincidence due to the small number of known planetary systems with three or more planets; that is why I publish elsewhere. But I have at times, to use the non-speculative forums to get the data and help needed to continue development. This is a difficult question because the semi-major axis of the planets already contain large margins of possible error, so I am going to give the largest possible value of plus or minus 10%. The value has to be given in percentage because of the vast differences in stellar system size. Hopefully, sometime in the future; more accurate measurement will allow a reduction in this value. At present the Titius-Bode rule is used as a rough guide, but a more accurate method can be found using wavelength, but as that is speculative it cannot be repeated on this forum.

I was not satisfied with the position of the blue line so after writing the above reply I returned to excel and altered it on the bases that Pluto is a captured planet and HD218396 is just forming with plenty of shrinking caused by condensation; still to come, then Neptune became the right hand marker. This led to an adjustment to semi-major-axis predicted for the proposed outer planet of 55rho1 shown on the amended graph. Recalling reading a comment about a faint indication of an outer planet I conducted a search and failed to find the comment I was looking for; but I did find the following on: http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/55cnc.html 55 Cancri is a mid-sixth magnitude star (magnitude 5.95) class G (G8) dwarf 41 light years away. A bit cooler (5280 Kelvin) and carrying just under a solar mass, it shines at just 58 percent of the luminosity of the Sun, its radius 0.9 solar. Like most stars with planets, 55 Cnc is rich in metals, its iron content (relative to hydrogen) quite high, twice that of the Sun. 55 Cancri is also a double star . Moving along with it through space is a dim 13th magnitude (13.7) class M red dwarf (probably M6) that is at least 1040 AU away and takes at least 30,000 years to orbit. From 55 Cancri's planets, the neighbor would shine somewhat dimmer than Venus at her maximum as seen from Earth. (55 Cancri aka 55rho1) The underline has been added. Of course prediction after the event has no value, but note that I am saying this is an outer planet while astronomers call it a twin star the difference being (I presume) one of nuclear activity. But if astronomers are saying that the 'twin' formed from a different dust cloud then I would have to disagree.

Being unedified as they use to say, I frequently need reminding of the blindingly obvious, its back to school time; but I will get there. Thanks. On having a go I found that the margin of error for the galactic centre is six times greater than the spread of the known planetary systems (with three or more planets) so perhaps I was over optimistic as to how far I could develop this aspect of my work.

I particularly avoided any specific cosmological point because one of the systems could be at 90 degrees to that point. But I overlooked the fact that the observer on Earth does see both planes so my question should read are they observed to rotate in the same or opposite directions? The reason I ask is because I noticed that there are similarities between planetary and atomic structure that can be explained mathematically, but one problem that remains unsolved is that of differences in orientation. The problem (if it is a problem and not just a coincidence) is explained in graph form, it shows that the mass structure of two systems have similarites that are increased once the inversions caused in part by opposing rotatation are removed. Because my work is speculative and to avoid breaking Forum rules, coupled with the fact that I am in unfamiliar territory on this forum; I have to be careful how I make submissions to this forum. But I should be on safe ground with the following graph and predictions. This is so elementary that I suspect something similar is already in use by astronomers and would welcome confirmation that that is the case. Finally I am hoping that the order in which the systems appear on the graph is related to their distance from the galactic centre, but again this measurement does not appear to be published.

I would like to know if when viewed from the same point in space, the planets of HD10180 are rotating in the opposite direction when compared to the Solar system?

PPS The European Space Organisation quotes the Titius-Bode law for finding the Semi-major axis, but Hall filling factors produce Semi-major axis of greater accuracy as shown by the following table and graph. Applying a similar method to HD10180 shows that HD10180g does not comply with either method. But excluding 10180g shows that the Titius-Bode method is better by 0.00005Au Finally the two Gliese systems:

This is a difficult question simply because there is so little data available to work with, the best I can do at present is as follows: CF theory divides the field into waves that are measured in fractions of the field radius; what we propose is that each wave has the same energy, wave compression being caused by a reduction in volume. Surprisingly Jain, who states that experiments use atoms of electrons has remarkably little to say about spherical structure, it is all in the opening paragraph of chapter 5.10 which states that the field has constant density. This implies that as the electrons are compressed to different compression states (compression not compaction meaning that the electron retains the same volume) the electron wavelength (along the radial) is shortened with each decrease in distance working inwards from the field surface, but as the contents of the electron has not altered, it follows that the wave energy of each electron is unchanged. It is proposed that something similar is occurring on the gravitational scale, just as interaction between the atomic nuclear force and the external force creates electron shells so also does nuclear and external forces divide gravitons into graviton shells each graviton and each shell has its peculiar wave. The fractions of atomic shells are given in Table 3 of my 2008 paper (http://69.5.17.59/cmps1.pdf); the fractions of graviton shells are given in submission 26 of this forum. Jain refers (ref. 605) to a paper by J. H. Smet titled ‘Wheels within wheels’ Nature 422,391 (2003). But this paper does not appear in the ‘Nature’ net index nor is it on arXiv or to be found in a general search; if anyone is able to help it would be much appreciated. PS Note that all the searches for gravitational waves are for waves created by disturbance of the static wave system; this is like looking for light wave emission from atoms rather than the waves that determine atomic structure.

Quite true, but electron shells are always negative, so yes. This is what comes from answering to quickly, it is of course the fractional wave energy that is constant.

As far as I can tell, your formula is (distance to next planet)/(largest radius). Given all of the Hall fractions, if you include errors I think most orbits are covered. Not falsifiable. This problem is referred to indirectly in the warwick reference: after a few layers of the hierarchy there will be more quasi-particles than there were electrons in the original system We are saying that quasi-particles should be replaced with distance between as that is the wavelength. A fraction of say 7/24 lying as it does, between 1/3 and 1/4 has an error of 50% well outside the acceptable margin of error so the proposal is falsifiable if a single planetary semi-major axis in a planetary system where all but one of the fractions are on the scale shown in the table, produces a fractional value of 7/24 or any other fraction outside the proposed margins of error; then the proposal is falsified. A whole in between layer of planets would be needed in a single planetary system to move into the next fractional sequence (or plateau). This can be explained by returning to electron fractions where we showed that all the electron fractions are on the same layer (i.e. 2CF plateau), but if the experiments were carried out with different parameters say at higher temperature, then we might find that the electrons are on a different plateau likewise a planetary system complete with fractions in between each standard fraction would have higher orbital velocities similar to electrons in high temperature atoms. We have yet to find such a system on the cosmic scale, but I recall reading that stars orbiting the galactic centre, for some unexplained reason; do so at speeds greater than their calculated escape velocities so we might after all have a candidate for a higher plateau system at the galactic centre. The difference between galactic and stellar compaction is probaly the cause of this difference and may also explain the problem of orbital values in the outer regions of galaxies. But I do not have the data to work on that and it is most likely beyond my abilities. That said if I could access the data for galactic centres I would work on it. But the FQHE gets weaker as you move away from the principle fractions. The orbits do not follow this. Shouldn't the largest fractions occur for the smallest orbits? Because 1) gravity acts in the opposite direction to EM and 2) the total force on each G wave is a constant that is spread over different volumes as proposed in the particle hypothesis (fm=G/2).

Reply 27 compares the fractions created using the Semi-major axis with the nearest Hall filling order fraction. Reply 36 paragraph 5 defines the limits of the margins of error. Any orbit that does not fit into the parameters given in reply 36 (without clear reason for not fitting) would be forbidden. Orbits are disrupted by violent events and such events have to be taken into account, but it would appear that smaller systems have fewer violent events as smaller targets are less likely to be hit; therefor I do not expect this to be a serious problem. To the above I can now (three hours later) add the following: The Hall fractional sequence and the problems associated with the sequence are explained on: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm Some of the problems can be dealt with in the following manner: Take a partial vacuum field and divide it into sub-division starting with 1/2, this gives the sequence 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc. the devisor is always an even number, but Hall found that the devisor is always an odd number 1/3, 1/5, 1/7 etc. Haldane and Halperin assumed that the fractions applied to quasi-particles, but the particle and planetary tables of the proposed wave fraction field theory show that the fractions relate to the distance between particle centres. The explanation of how this works in reality was given in an article published on the 11 Mar 2008 and can be found in Fig.3 on: http://69.5.17.59/cmps1.pdf

To a certain extent I understand the criticisms being made, but take into account the extract from Scerri’s paper given in reply No. 10. Prediction, although desirable; is not the main aim. The aim is to show that planetary systems are constructed in the same manner as that proposed hypothetically for particles and demonstrated to be present in atoms (Table of Elements submission) and now shown to be present in planetary systems (reply 22 graphs). All three are balanced fields with inner and outer sub-divisions of the whole field. All three have fractional wave structures that are similar to those found in either FQHE or Composite Fermions theory. Reply 36 summarizes the current position. The whole is classed as ‘speculation’ because we are using swansont’s definition of speculation and as it is posted in the Speculations Forum I did not feel that there was any need to define it as ‘speculation’ in my opening submission. I do get irritated at this whole ‘speculations’ business particularly in respect of my work on the Table of Elements, hence my admittedly unnecessary comment; but I am not going to argue about that all over again; there are better ways of using my time.

I would expand on your comments by adding that I am trying to show that there is a fundamental wave structure repeated on each compaction scale (various G compactions [planetary, stellar, galactic etc], and EM, and SF). During the formation of composite bodies the external force is constant while the nuclear force increases, this means that the external force is the superior (of two overlapping forces) for a time and as the nuclear force increases it (the nuclear force) gradually becomes the superior force. Because particles are added from the outside this is most clearly seen in atomic structure; where we do not have to explain actions within a dust cloud. It is for that reason that atomic and composite particles produce compression fractions (as in CF theory), but cosmic bodies produce 'filling factors' as in Hall's experiment. CF theory is 2 dimensional and so far attempts to expand CF into 3 dimensions have been inconclusive with margins of error of up to 20%; my work has not only reduced the margin of error to 10%, but has explained the cause of that single 10% error. All experimental 2 dimensional fractions are approximate fractions, but the 3 dimensional atomic shell fractions are exact fractions. Margins of error in the Table of planetary fractions divide into two distinct sections, in the inner 2/3 the margins of error do not exceed 1%, in the outer 1/3 the margins of error do not exceed 10% this can be interpreted as indicating that the most violent events occur in the outer regions of planetary systems during the early stages of planetary formation. Finally I should point out that all the above is developed from my original hypothesis that there is one elementary particle and one elementary force (rm = G/2). Thanks for your input, it has I believe; led to a clearer explanation of both the data and my aim, elas

They are Hall fractions in so far as the numerator is always '1', but whereas Hall was limited by experimental parameters, nature has no such limitation. Using the largest semi-major axis was a gamble based on the assumption that the Solar system is the largest possible planetary system. This assumption is based on the similarity of a graph of irregularities in planetary structure with graphs to be found in my submissions on lepton, meson and baryon filling order structures in that there is an irregular pattern at maximum radius (you dismissed all three as "numerology''). The PF archives seem to have disappeared , but one article can be seen on: http://69.5.17.59/brynhf.pdf This far I have shown that Hall fractions occur in the filling order tables of leptons, mesons, baryons and planets and that CF fractions of the lower Landau level are to be found in the electron shell structure of atoms. Electron shell fractions are unique in that they are exact fractions whereas all fractions derived from FQHE and CF experiments are approximate fractions. You are misunderstanding what is happening on this forum. As with all my submissions I submit an idea and use the criticism of that idea to produce a final theoretical submission. A reading of the questions and answers between swansont and myself will show how this works. Nine days ago a newspaper article announced the discovery of a new planetary system and that gave me an idea; criticism of the way that idea was expressed mathematically has led to the final table and graph; but each submission is based on the same observed or experimental data and is an improvement on the previous submission. There are different fractional sequences (compression, filling, vortex and spin) and It was necessary to sort out which was applicable to the available planetary data. My latest reply to swansont shows how, in my opinion; all of my submissions knit together to form the foundation of new ‘wave fraction theory’. In reality responsibility for the final proposal of a wave fraction theory owes as much to swansont and his predecessors (over the last 21 years) as it does to me. swansont may not be too happy about that, but it’s to late to backtrack now!

I have not moved the goalpost, but presented the same facts in a different manner. I have explained the cause of these differences between actual and theoretical fractions. QHFE and Composite Fermions both deal in 'approximate fractions' without giving a margin of error. I doubt if an astrophysicist or FQHE theorist would find the difference between actual and theoretical fractions unaceptable. It is not a case of challenging the accuracy of astronomical data, but of understanding what causes the data to be as observed.

To do that it would be necessary first to predict the Semi-major axis of the planets before they are observed how is anyone expected to do that? I am showing that all the planets are assembled on a single fractional wave structure and predicting that will be the case in all future discoveries. The wording on the graph has been corrected, both table and graph now show that all planets, without exception; occupy the vortex position. That agrees with my very first table on Solar planets. The wave action organises the dust cloud prior to the creation of a planetary system nucleus (star); concentric gravitational force between particles condenses the dust on each wave into a planet. Stars are created by dust particles that do not have the correct velocity to keep them in an orbital position, that is not to be expected in an regular spinning dust cloud, hence the prevalence of twin star or single star/planet systems. It takes a degree of violence to disrupt the velocity of dust in a spinning dust cloud hence the shortage of multiple planetary systems.

The following table lists all known planatary systems with more than two planets. A comparison is made between Hall Filling Factors and Planetary Filling Factors. It shows that the larger errors occur in the Solar system and are due to the fact that during its creation the Solar system had more violent upheavals than the other much smaller planetary systems; such as the creation of the Earth/Moon twin planetary system, the creation of the Asteroid belt and the capture of Pluto. The key points of the table are presented in a logarithmic graph. This can be falsified by finding a planetary system that does not have the required Planetary Filling Factors within a reasonable and explainable margin of error.

The criticism made so far by swansont and John Cuthber can be answered by replacing the unsatisfactory graph with the following table: The distance between planets is given as a fraction of the greatest semimajor axis (39.44) and compared with the nearest Hall filling fraction and the difference expressed in percentage terms. Margins of error occur in the region of the Asteroids where a planet has failed to form or has formed and been destroyed. A larger discrepancy occurs due to the eccentric orbit of Pluto which is partly outside and partly inside the orbit of Neptune. But these explainable errors aside, this shows that the planets of both planetary systems fill different waves of the same fractional wave sequence. That is to say that both systems are constructed according to the same rules. The original aim of this submission was to see if planetary field structure is similar to the balanced field structure given in the hypothesis on particle structure and also shown in the structural table of the elements. With that in mind I return to the graphs shown in reply 22. The cause of the structural difference between inner and outer planets can be explained in a way similar to that used to explain the cause of the covalent atomic radii. To begin with the dust cloud that would become the Solar system had no central mass, the dust cloud held together because the G force between particles was greater than the ‘anti’ G force of the dust cloud provided by the G force of all external bodies, but the ‘anti’ G force was greater that the almost non-existent force of the dust cloud nucleus. As in atomic structure this means that the external force determined the radii (semimajor axis) of the outer planets. As the central mass increased a point was reached when the nuclear force became stronger than the external force (again as shown in atomic structure of the elements) and the internal (or nuclear) force determined the semimajor axis of the planets creating the inner planetary system. We could stretch this analogy even further by sugesting that the Asteriods are the cosmological equivalent of the Transitional elements. To summarise, it has been shown that the structure of charged particles, atoms and planetary systems can be explained in terms of balanced fractional wave fields and that 2 dimensional Composite Fermions theory can be extended into the 3 dimensional world (Jain’s phrase).