elas

The cause of the fractional structural sequence is made clear by the following graph; any point on a straight line is a member of a single fractional sequence. (low case letters are planets of HD10180)

Some of the criticism made so far can now be answered mathematically, the table below shows how the published data for HD10180 produces fractions that like Laughlin filling factors, are fractions with a numerator value of 1; the margins of error are considerably less than the margins of error given for the published data. It is not possible to do the same for the Solar system, but it is possible to explain why by using graphs of the mass values. Graphs A and C show that HD10180 has two distinct patterns one inner and one outer. Graphs A and B shows that in the inner field the solar system has a pattern that is horizontally inverted when compared to HD10180; graphs C and D show that in the outer field the solar system has an outer field that is vertically inverted when compared to HD10180. HD10180 has no body that separates A and C, but in the solar system B and D are separated by the Asteroids. Above the graphs the line drawings extracted from the graphs show the similarity between the two systems when the inversions are removed, indicating that similar fractional structure would be found if the gravitational wave structures were of similar construction. The next stage will be to graph the gravitational wave structure and hopefully, the result will demonstrate further support for the proposition that the fractional wave patterns of composite fermions are part of a universal fractional wave compression system.

superposition of states A mixture of quantum states for which it is impossible to specify the physical characteristics of a quantum entity. Q is for Quantum John Gribbin We can specify the physical characteristics of planets, but is this ‘the position’ or just one of the many superpositions. Where is the proof that it is not a superposition? Are there not a number of so-called many world theories. One can wander off into the realm of strings and branes or stay with observable reality. But I am not going down that road, CF theory is fully experimentally proven, it does yield approximate fractions, but it does not produce superpositions.

But the position of a particle at any given time is still a probability according to the textbooks I use for references. No doubt tou are correct. But the position of a particle at any given time is still a probability

That is the current state of QT. Quantum theory makes descriptions of matter and energy based on wave equations that relate to the probability of a particle existing in a certain spot at a certain time. The centre of mass is drawn towards the centre of the vacuum (whose movement is determined by movement within larger vacuum fields; stellar and galactic). We know that the Earth’s centre of mass can be up to a metre away from the centre of gravity. But wave action is also pushing the mass towards either the wave centre or the wave junction (vortex centre on the atomic scale); depending on the ratio of mass and number of bodies, to wavelength. The probability of a large mass being on any particular point of that journey would be predictable if we had sufficient information on planetary formation and movement over a long term. QT cannot tell us where the particle is; but CF theory tells us the cause of this failure. Indications are that if the G field of the larger bodies of a system are to large to fit into the potential vortex position then all the bodies of the system are forced by wave action, to occupy the wave structure itself. In CF theory there is a known limit to wave compression hence the discovery of incompressable fractions. We propose that likewise, there is a limit to expansion of the vortex wave fraction hence a limit to the size of any field trying to occupy the potential vortex field. I use the term potential vortex position because, as in atomic structure; there cannot be a vortex until the vortex position contains mass.

Look at the difference in orbital distances and you will realise that solar planets occupy the wave junctions (as I have always maintained), that is to say in CF terms solar planets occupy the vortex positions but HD10180 planets occupy the wave positions. The difference in fractions was explained many moons ago in a Structural Table of CF fractions. (wave fraction + vortex fraction =1; 1/3+2/3=1, 2/5+3/5=1, 3/7+4/7=1 etc). I will attempt to do the research and write further on this concept. It is to the glory of all God's work, that they be done with great simplicity Isaac Newton

This time you are right, I will stick with particles and atoms where I have an answer to all the questions put to me.

Correct; but the same was true of many other proposals in the history of science, even Einstein had to wait for someone to prove his hypothesis correct; as I recall the first person to do so had to 'cook the books' a little. That is not what I said, but as visitors turned up before I could edit my reply I probably have not made myself very clear. The wave structure of basic gravitational systems all have the fractional sequence that start at the outer edge with 1/3 followed inwards with 2/5, 3/7 etc (Hall sequence). This is made clear in all the cosmological examples I have put forward. Within a G field (as within an EM field) there can be sub-states of compression such as planetary rings that are mixed compression systems created at different times. But bodies formed in a single creative act (comet Bo-Hop rings for example) have the Hall sequence with an outer 1/3 fraction. The number of fractions, of course; depends on the number of planets or rings. In the case of Bo-Hop we have an almost perfect system (99%) because unlike planetary and galactic systems Bo-Hop rings were not subject to violent disruptions. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -There is nothing speculative about observable data. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No because as I demonstrated in the 'em = G/2' submission there is only one elementary force, which we observe in four compaction states. That is because a balanced system requires that force changes direction in each adjacent compaction state SF and EM act towards each other, EM and G act away from each other. this reversal of force also applies to sub-compactions for example: Fig.2 of my paper illustrates that Periods 3 and 4 act in oposite directions; Periods 6 and 7 act in opposite directions; Periods 4 and 7 act in the same diection as also do Periods 5 and 6. It is these subtle changes in the direction of 'sub-compressions' (i.e. compression within the same force compaction in addition to compression caused by different force compactions) combined with electron numbers and positions that determine the nature of the elements. Although I understand the demand for predictions I think the conclusion of chapter 5 of The Periodic Table by Eric R Scerri is relevant the first paragraph follows: The claim is sometimes made that successful prediction gives more credit to a theory than does the accommodation of known facts. But it is difficult to find clear cut evidence for this claim in the technical writing of scientist. A successful prediction may yield much favourable publicity for a theory and thereby force other scientists to give it serious consideration. But subsequent evaluations of the theory in scientific literature usually do not give greater weight to the prediction of novel facts than to the persuasive deductions of known facts.

Madelung's rule is a guideline based on an approximation of an underlying physics concept, that of minimum energy states being stable. According to Scerri Madelung's rule is a semi-empirical explanation; the appropriate quotation is: As the eminent quantum chemist Löwdin (among others) has pointed out, this filling order has never been derived from quantum mechanics (Löwdin, P. O. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1969, 3 (Suppl.), 331.) Most of the time, n+l will tell you which energy states are lower/ But you do not appear to be proposing an approximation based on demonstrated physics principles. Is not magnetic compression a demonstrated physical principle? You are extrapolating a condensed matter effect to much smaller systems (and now, much larger systems) where the applicability has not been demonstrated. CF theorists have tried unsuccessfully to extrapolate from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional; why is it acceptable for CF experimenters to extrapolate and not me? It is the wave structure that is condensed, the size of the system is irrelevant. CF fractions are found by experiments on atoms of electrons using external magnetic compression, I use the natural internal magnetic compression to find compression fractions. Are not the electrons in both cases demonstrating a condensed matter effect? You have yet to present any way that your model could be falsified, as you make no predictions — you changed the one prediction you had appeared to make once I pointed out that it conflicted with current theory. There is no way to test your theory until you make specific predictions. And they have to be better than what current theory already predicts. Using wave fractions derived from magnetic compression (as in FQHE and CF) I have predicted the filling order and shown the cause of the exceptions to Madelung’s semi-empirecal rule.

It is because the fractions are wave related and observers are observing the wave structure of the universe. Momentum and violent events distort the wave structure particularly where large bodies are involved, but in the case of elementary and composite particles, atoms and comets perfect wave structures are observed. The theoretical ideal spiral galaxy is also a perfect fractional wave structure on all radials. Of course there are many bodies that do not comply, but these do not comply with any other structural rule or law; what has to be taken into consideration is the large number of cases where the universal wave structure is apparent. In the case of planetary systems distortion of the wave structure is another tool to help in understanding the history of the system. I note that John Cuthber and yourself comment only on those areas with the greatest distortion, but make no comment on those areas where there are perfect structures; surely that amounts to a lack of balance in your comments, after all there are considerable flaws in Madelung's rule, but Scerri does not deal solely with the flaws, but also with the accuracy. JC should also note that Madelung's rule is only 79% accurate and no one complained about that. Nature is not always perfect it simply endeavors to be so. What I am proposing is the desired (according to Jain) extension of 2 dimensional CF theory into the 3 dimensional world. The result is a filling order with no exceptions, an explanation of the cause of covalent radii, an explanation of the cause of the nature of the elements, a replacement of approximate electron fractions with exact electron fractions and a beginning to an understanding of the underlying cause of universal structure.

The underlying law is that of Composite Fermions theory (a QT) which I apply to universal structures. Given the violence involved in planetary formation, it is unrealistic to expect a high degree of accuracy; even so, what you call gross approximations are in fact of greater accuracy than is found when CF (a 2 dimensional theory) is applied to the 'three dimensional world' (Jain) where the margin of error is '10-20%'. The only exact fractions (with no margin of error) are those derived from atomic structure see: http://69.5.17.59/Composite%20Fermions%20Fractions%20of.pdf The filling order of CF theory is a universal effect not just an effect that is applicable only to atoms of electrons.

On numerous occasions I have pointed out how the main FQHE (approximate) fractional sequence can be found in particle, atomic, and cosmological structure, only to have the observation transferred to Speculations. So if gives me great pleasure to point out the latest addition; the newly discovered planets of HD10180: Where is the speculation?

When using Excel to construct Graphs, the line style width always appears as 225. At present I have to change each line to 75 manually; the 'control click' instruction to change all the lines in one operation does not work. I would like to alter the setup so that all lines are drawn at the 75 width, but cannot find how to do so; can anyone help?

jajrussel My apologies, for not realising that this forum is in 'Speculations' I will make a reply at length as soon as possible.

Your ref. also refers to the paper by Sciara which contains the following: "Of course, most of what I have said so far is well known. Nevertheless, I hope to have given these issues a new perspective by adopting an almost perversely rigorous approach in demanding that every aspect of electronic configurations should be strictly deducible from quantum mechanics. Although I am not in a position to propose a better explanation, I do not think that we should be complacent about what the present explanation achieves. As I have tried to argue, in terms of deduction from theoretical principles, the present semi-empirical explanation is not fully adequate". Please refer the reply to John Cuthber On two submissions1 we have shown that using magnetic compression to form fractions (following the practice used in the interpretation of FQHE and Composite Fermions experiments); we have produced an explanation that has greater accuracy than the current teaching. This has be done using a single force and a single elementary particle; as the single force is gravity (Relativity) and Composite Fermions theory is part of QED we have a crossover of the two theories. Current models and teachings treat particles and atoms as entities that can be explained without reference to the cause of their structure, by showing the relationship between internal and external forces the proposed theory is fully causal. 1http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50848-gravity-as-the-fundamental-force/page__p__555536__fromsearch__1#entry555536

Supplement 2 Theories of atomic nucleus radii fall into two categories, those that are calculated using mass; and those that are fraction of atomic radii. Continuing to use the relationship between forces offers a different method of predicting the radii of atomic nuclei. Having shown the role played by gravity (G) and linear force (LF) in determining the structure of the elements, the following proposal shows how G and LF determine the atomic nucleus radius using the equation: G is the gravitational constant. FL is the sum of the linear force measured at regular intervals along the radius. RQMC is the Quantum Mechanical Compton radius. RE is the electric radius. This takes the ratio of RQMC to RE and applies the ratio to the force and anti-force (internal and external forces) that determine atomic radii. The result is shown in graph form below: Nuclear and non-nuclear atomic forces act in opposite directions, as a result acts that cause a reduction in the atomic radius, cause an expansion of the nucleus radius.

supplement At present there is no explanation of why periods of the elements start and end at their particular points, an explanation is offered on: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50848-gravity-as-the-fundamental-force/page__p__555536__fromsearch__1#entry555536

Started a reply to VUQUTA, but became aware that a solution to a long standing debate might be possible. My first submission (several years ago) remained in ‘Modern and Theoretical Physics’ for a short while before being transferred to ‘speculations’ because “there are too many gaps in the sequence” as shown in the first col. of the following table: The work was later dismissed as “pure numerology”. I shall return to the fractional sequence shown in col. 'a' later. In FQHE all the fractions found in the early years had odd number denominators and that might still be the case today, as recently as 2007 it was also true of composite fermions theory and as far as I am aware, it is still true today. It will be shown that that is also true of certain cases of atomic structure of the elements. Finally it should be remembered that FQHE and composite fermions fractions are approximate fractions. The internal force field of elementary particles is found with the equation: mr = g/2 (internal force field) for composite particles and atoms: mr = linear force (internal force field). Newton’s law of gravitation equation is used to find the external gravitational force. The result is shown below: Newton’s equation for G uses two bodies, using a pair of atoms of each atomic number and dividing the result by 2 yields the G force for a single atom; combining the external field force g/2 and the internal field force to make a fraction {(G/2)/LF)} as shown in the following graph illustrating how the limits of compaction are determined by the ratio of inner (LF) to outer (G) force fields: Period 1 is the nuclear shell. Period 3 is short because there is no space in period 3 for Transitional Metals2. Radii are not given for atomic numbers 80 and higher. This graph shows that the starting point for all periods of the table of elements for which radii are known, occur on a straight line; that is interpreted as meaning that gravity plays a major role in determining the nature of the elements Next the atomic mass is divided by G/2 and compared with the approximate fractional sequence 1/3, 1/5, 1/7 etc. The start of each period of the elements is circled and numbered. This shows that compression caused by an increasing linear force, (caused by an increase in the number of elementary particles) alters the ratio of internal linear force to the external gravitational force creating fractions of lower value. It also shows how compression forces atoms into the fractional sequence. The logical conclusion to be drawn from the forgoing is that at the junction between inner linear force and outer gravitational force, the forces should be equal, but in reality 96.1% of the gravitational force is unobserved (dark energy). At this stage I have not found a way of presenting the reason why this is so in a presentable manner, but I will continue to work on this problem. Fractions with even number denominators are found below the odd denominator fraction line bringing the whole into agreement with the original table of elementary particle fractions. This ‘physics’ article should be read together with the ‘chemistry’ article on: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/48561-composite-fermions-as-a-foundation-of-the-periodic-table/page__p__542912__fromsearch__1#entry542912

Two short questions, the first requires an essay; the second requires some new work; I will reply in a few days.

When observing the electromagnetic force of atoms the force is either ‘0’ or very close to ‘0’ because it is the difference between positive and negative particles within the atom that is being measured. In a similar manner when measuring gravitational force it is the interaction of force and anti-force that is measured. That is to say that because 97.78% of the linear gravitational force obeys the inverse square law, there exist a difference between total linear force and total linear anti-force that is observable (due to the convex and concave graph curves). Therefore only a very small quantity of gravitational force (i.e the difference between the values of opposing forces) is measurable and the large unmeasured portion is referred to as ‘dark matter’ or ‘dark energy'. Einstein considered mass and energy as different ways of measuring the same entity. The quantity of dark matter depends on the number of elementary particles within the force field and this can vary even between two bodies with the same nuclear mass depending as it does on the difference in mass and distance between bodies. Therefore any value for quantities of dark matter or dark energy within a large composite field can only be an estimate. To produce an accurate value for single elementary particles of the different particle states used in this paper would require about 120 000 lines per particle, on an excel sheet which is twice the maximum and on my machine where anything over about 20 000 lines slows things down to a ridiculous degree (the short radius of the nuclei prevents any reduction in scale). An attempt to produce a value for an electron indicates that the observed G force would be about 1/137 of the actual G force, but that cannot be said to be the same for all compactions of the elementary particle. Of course such values cannot be checked by experiment so the whole exercise has little purpose. But it might be possible to do something with atoms of each element, I will have a go and report back on this forum in about a week.

Several years ago I proposed that for elementary particles: mass x radius = linear force constant A recent revision proposed that: mass x radius = gravitational constant/2 More recently the proton radius was the subject of a new experiment that led to this revision it includes the proton, neutron, and fine structure constant. Col. A lists the particles. Col. B is the mass values given by Codata. Col. C gives the value of the elementary particle radii using the R^QMC equation given by Malcolm H Mac Gregor. Col. D shows the single and three particle linear force constants. (mass x RQMG) Col. E Gives the radii found when the linear force constant is replaced with G/2 (3.3465E-11). In Col. F the QMC linear force constant is replaced with the Gravitational constant/2. Cols. G and H show the difference between RQMG and RG in actual and percentage values. Current teaching gives the strong force in two ways firstly as 100 x electromagnetic force and secondly the electromagnetic force is 1/137 of the strong force (with a value of 1). Sections highlighted in the upper box show the construction of the equation: The proton radius P(RG) is divided by the square of the number of elementary particles within the proton to yield a value for each elementary particle. The result is divided by eRG to yield the PRG:rRG ration in strong force terms. As the strong force is 100 x electromagnetic force this value is divided by 100 to give the uncompressed or electromagnetic value. The em value is divided by 2 to give the value for a single particle: The result being close to the fine structure constant. The fine structure constant applies to the electric radius, while RG applies to the radius of the fundamental force. This proposal divides the elementary particles into groups and waves as shown in the graph below. The waves in the red box are equal and opposite. Particles that are stable in nature are in the upper blue box.

Thanks, clearly a case of When in doubt, don't try them out!

Yes, where Rydberg used Balmer's formula I use Quantum Mechanical Compton Radii in the same manner; due to my untrained amateur status I was unaware of Rydberg's work until your reply caused me to look up Rydberg on Wikipedia, but now I can go back to revise and expand my theory to include Rydberg's constant. That should lead onto the unification of the two papers I have written, one on particle structure and one on atomic structure. This is not the place to expand further; but it is suffice to say that in my opinion; this is a classic example of what a science forum should be about i.e. helping each other to make progress, and for that I am truely grateful.

Four entries in 'My Comments' contain the instruction "Call this number on Skype" followed by a mobile telephone number, is this gewnuine or some sort of scam?