danking

Electron Configuration of Atom - Please Help!

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Yes you have answered some of my questions clearly, but wrongly.

 

Would you like a list?

 

Within 5 minutes of my post you reproduced as fact that which another member with an impeccable academic pedigree has told you was 'incorrect'.

 

Why?

3

yes please... list... 

I'm sorry but I thought science wasn't personal? Don't get "emotional" 

What does this mean??? 

Within 5 minutes of my post you reproduced as fact that which another member with an impeccable academic pedigree has told you was 'incorrect'.

who is this member? OMG seriously you are s SCIENCE TROLL... 

What this guy with the hat?

59a99b7eaf57e_ScreenShot2017-09-01at18_39_38.thumb.png.fa7d2b3d3822afd420fd44ca1e12cf9f.png

 

Your serious right? The trajectories? 

Can I assume if I guess you, Mr Swansont with the "impeccable academic record" and Mr Iodine and given me a bad sign on my profile lol... 

You like your own opinions and nobodies else... very sad... there are tons of science forums ... i will go elsewhere... ;-) #holdnogrudge

this is your space... 

can't you just delete my account? the silence of the lambs an all that... 

Flat earth? 

4 hours ago, danking said:

It's omitted because there is no gap between 1 2 3  gaps = 0 0 so you could write 0 0 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 5 1 5

I've also had  a chance to drill into this p and d problem and have an explanation... 

Summary of the main issues yesterday was the p and d are in the wrong order below... should read 5   3 not  3   5  (I've not looked at f because that is a lot more full on)

1     1     3     1     3     1     3     5     1     5  (Primes Gaps)

1s1 2s1 2p3 3s1 3p3 4s1 4p3 3d5 5s1 4d5  (Electron Configuration from Hydrogen to Cadmium)

Okay so the 4p and 3d are in the wrong order... why?

What is the difference between p and d? 

P orbital

AAAUAWO0.jpg.9ad831096955f8b002a69dca56779bf3.jpg

d oribital

D_orbitals.png.8a45c5395b3e1988c7aff6a4f009139a.png

There is a significant difference...

p orbitals contain 2 electrons on each axis x, y and z

d orbitals contain ONLY 1 electron on each axis AND occupy the same space as the px, py, pz, s = 4 electrons

59a95e7d00ca3_ScreenShot2017-09-01at14_19_34.png.16532a37dcf1a18abca952e5d945b31a.png

59a95e7ec5c65_ScreenShot2017-09-01at14_19_47.png.5704ebe09506f625d7534273bcb4e3aa.png

and in between the x, y and z 6 electrons

59a95ed13e65d_ScreenShot2017-09-01at14_20_44.png.00040bfa466cb253f1c9d22fcc70bd7b.png 59a95ed2b21ce_ScreenShot2017-09-01at14_20_39.png.0d8ed5c375045f8775608566a6814e93.png 59a95ecd15f69_ScreenShot2017-09-01at14_20_52.png.2cfbd75d5309f89597c94a9d28c5de35.png

So essentially the electrons in the d occupy 10 axis NOT 5... and are in the "same space" as the p and s BUT they go through the middle of the nucleus as there is only 1 electron per axis...

So the d orbitals occupy:

4s1, 4p3, 3d5, 5s1 BUT across the axis so they also occupy the - 4s1, - 4p3, -3d5, -5s1 with the SAME electron... = 10 electrons 

I haven't looked at the f orbitals I thought I would let this sink in first - so please don't bombard me with f lol 

Dan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, danking said:

Okay good we're getting somewhere you are absolutely right the electron aspect is a bit of a red herring because they are probability shells rather than actual paths ways themselves ...  The key is they sit within those "shapes" so what is keeping them in those shapes? If you add electrons together in the same space you get sparks or lightning... 

The prime numbers are the key... they make those "cone" shapes... 

It's very hard to show in 2D but this is a prime number "cone" 

Screen Shot 2017-09-01 at 16.20.22.png

 

 

 

okay this is a bit of a nonsense ... the 0 atom? 1 2 3 could very well be the dimensional aspects i.e. the axis and whether 1 or 2 are primes is a nonsense... 

and if you read the last post those are single spin atom allocations - d block so the existence of a single spin in d would translate to other single spins but this is all a bit like 100 and 1,000's on a cake... you need the cake first. 

More complex version of the prime cone... (red lines indicate primes)59a97c1bafd6d_ScreenShot2017-08-31at18_09_47.thumb.png.219b3ba9b4a0fcdd4ca998f012ee9ebd.png

and more complex sitll 

imageproxy.php?img=&key=f247047110aebb7059a97c4a7f933_ScreenShot2017-08-31at18_09_19.thumb.png.534cc7cfba4dcbfbc91d00022ffd9815.png

 

you can see with a little imagination the cones within each other... on a particular axis 

59a97d8a0d24f_ScreenShot2017-09-01at16_31_10.thumb.jpg.66e4b5c41d028ee2b736413e9d9efd3b.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, danking said:

yes please... list... 

I'm sorry but I thought science wasn't personal? Don't get "emotional" 

What does this mean??? 

Within 5 minutes of my post you reproduced as fact that which another member with an impeccable academic pedigree has told you was 'incorrect'.

who is this member? OMG seriously you are s SCIENCE TROLL... 

What this guy with the hat?

59a99b7eaf57e_ScreenShot2017-09-01at18_39_38.thumb.png.fa7d2b3d3822afd420fd44ca1e12cf9f.png

 

Your serious right? The trajectories? 

Can I assume if I guess you, Mr Swansont with the "impeccable academic record" and Mr Iodine and given me a bad sign on my profile lol... 

You like your own opinions and nobodies else... very sad... there are tons of science forums ... i will go elsewhere... ;-) #holdnogrudge

this is your space... 

You are just reacting you are not thinking and you are certainly not reading what is written.

I have no idea and no way of finding out who is downvoting you.
It has been at least two years since I last gave a negative vote, I try to only use positive ones for encouragement.

And I have a personal policy of stating the reason in my next post any time I vote up or down for anybody.
I have never been ashamed of my opinion (which is what that is).

But I have already told you that I have not voted in this thread.

 

No I was not referring to swansont.

 

 

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, studiot said:

You are just reacting you are not thinking and you are certainly not reading what is written.

I have no idea and no way of finding out who is downvoting you.
It has been at least two years since I last gave a negative vote, I try to only use positve ones for encouragement.

And I have a personal policy of stating the reason in my next post any time I vote up or down for anybody.
I have never been ashamed of my opinion (which is what that is).

But I have already told you that I have not voted in this thread.

 

No I was not referring to swansont.

 

 

 

Okay well look I have 3 down votes... I'm sure galileo had more than 3 down grades...  i expect it as a complex thinker it's a concrete thinker reaction to a complex thinker... 

There have been only 4 main replies so I don't have to be Agatha Christie to work out the downgrades... 

As a new user can I tell you how you come across? 

You come across as bullies... you use passive aggressive statements and then accuse people of being emotional... it's pretty tragic and I guess when you can't bully them you downgrade them in frustration.. pretty tragic for a science forum that is supposed to be free from emotion. 

You accuse people of behaviour you exhibit.

I wish you, guys well but my guess is that you are the only people that post because your users are scared of you...  your default setting is to attack, accuse and humiliate... that's neither human nor scientific. 

 

 

 

sorry lol not swansot lol: time bandits evil genius

Evil defo... 

 

photo-thumb-239.jpg

and just an FYI I've taken a record of the entire conversation string as I expect to be deleted... and when this has been proven as being right I don't want you guys popping up with this was my idea lol... 

Whose evil now... lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

77 replies and 725 views of this subject........... about 10 views per reply.

No I don't believe that either swansont or HypervalentIodine have downvoted you, that that is obviously possible.
and by the way, yes you are new, and if you had taken the time to look around you might have noticed that HypervalentIodine is in fact a Lady who tutors Phd chemistry students.

Lots of members have passed through,  look and say to themselves

"Do I want to deal with this poster"

You should reflect upon the answer to that.

 

I have already told you why I have continued to bother with this thread.

You have not picked up on that or asked anything about this.

It is a fact that many apparently unconnected physical phenomenon appear in abstract mathematical group theory.
I have retired and am not interested in further glory, as I have a dozen or more scientific papers to my name. If I have prompted you in that direction and it bears fruit, you are welcome. It will have advanced science.
But note that this thread has made its way to the trash can for other reasons.

 

Edited by studiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

We don't delete accounts, except for spammers, because it removes what you've written. What you've written is never deleted, but may get hidden or thrown in the Trash Can if it's off-topic, or is just repeating something that's been refuted.

 
!

Moderator Note

We can ban you if you like. You don't seem to like it here, despite not being able to stay away (you keep posting), and your attitude needn't be inflicted on those who've shown enough interest in your ideas to post in your thread. You make rash statements, then get offended when someone criticizes them. You bring too much ego to your attempts at science.

We require a lot of rigor, and we're not for everyone. As you said, you should be able to find another science forum that doesn't mind your equivocation and inexact definitions. We wish you the best of luck in this. Please let me know if you'd like to be banned. Nothing you've written thus far will be removed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"No, we don't delete threads, unless they are in violation of the rules (i.e. spam or profanity)" 

OMG apparently that is not true: 59a9c0c108bb4_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_18_56.thumb.png.be195c4a50319080d198cf57983bf07e.png

 

very Chinese of you... lol ... who needs Free Speech lol! 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

77 replies and 725 views of this subject........... about 10 views per reply.

No I don't believe that either swansont or HypervalentIodine have downvoted you, that that is obviously possible.
and by the way, yes you are new, and if you had taken the time to look around you might have noticed that HypervalentIodine is in fact a Lady who tutors Phd chemistry students.

Lots of members have passed through,  look and say to themselves

"Do I want to deal with this poster"

You should reflect upon the answer to that.

 

I have already told you why I have continued to bother with this thread.

You have not picked up on that or asked anything about this.

It is a fact that many apparently unconnected physical phenomenon appear in abstract mathematical group theory.
I have retired and am not interested in further glory, as I have a dozen or more scientific papers to my name. If I have prompted you in that direction and it bears fruit, you are welcome. It will have advanced science.
But note that this thread has made its way to the trash can for other reasons.

 

No, we don't delete threads, unless they are in violation of the rules (i.e. spam or profanity)

This was deleted FYI... 

#

59a9c132602c5_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_20_35.png.b27ea13fb91188e4a848a2e33835e3fc.png

 

which when you click on Go To this post

 

59a9c150c8808_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_20_25.thumb.png.035d2fb4c14795f314dbd4d98f5b47df.png

 

speaks for itself `I guess... 

Look I'm not interested in shining a light on your hypocrisy but you keep emailing me:

59a9c1bd74d95_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_22_48.thumb.png.2aa34e8de59ba0d46adf6aa41bae04df.png

and yet I have said don't... 

 

 

 

 

so this is your bad UX not me... 59a9c214f3cb0_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_24_10.thumb.png.cabedc036e81af5d023b620e5930fb4c.png

 

Pretty MUCH like my experience here... bullying... 

poor UX - user experience ... 

poor... 

 

 

 

pleasssseeee stop emailing me i am soooooo over this lol 

  • This is a great gem considering i am a reasonable human being very North Korea lol 

Should you delete your forum maybe?

59a9c2ae24d74_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_18_56.thumb.png.44d28c6970e5ce754cca1c08dc1a7fb6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, danking said:

Okay good we're getting somewhere you are absolutely right the electron aspect is a bit of a red herring because they are probability shells rather than actual paths ways themselves ...  The key is they sit within those "shapes" so what is keeping them in those shapes? If you add electrons together in the same space you get sparks or lightning... 

The prime numbers are the key... they make those "cone" shapes... 

It's very hard to show in 2D but this is a prime number "cone" 

Screen Shot 2017-09-01 at 16.20.22.png

 

 

 

okay this is a bit of a nonsense ... the 0 atom? 1 2 3 could very well be the dimensional aspects i.e. the axis and whether 1 or 2 are primes is a nonsense... 

and if you read the last post those are single spin atom allocations - d block so the existence of a single spin in d would translate to other single spins but this is all a bit like 100 and 1,000's on a cake... you need the cake first. 

More complex version of the prime cone... (red lines indicate primes)59a97c1bafd6d_ScreenShot2017-08-31at18_09_47.thumb.png.219b3ba9b4a0fcdd4ca998f012ee9ebd.png

and more complex sitll 

imageproxy.php?img=&key=f247047110aebb7059a97c4a7f933_ScreenShot2017-08-31at18_09_19.thumb.png.534cc7cfba4dcbfbc91d00022ffd9815.png

 

you can see with a little imagination the cones within each other... on a particular axis 

59a97d8a0d24f_ScreenShot2017-09-01at16_31_10.thumb.jpg.66e4b5c41d028ee2b736413e9d9efd3b.jpg

 

Er, what? If the electron thing was a red herring then we are once again back to the fact that your sequence is wrong, with no explanation as to why this doesn't matter. Your whole idea relies on this sequence and it's similarity to another sequence. It has been shown to you in detail how and where it is not similar, and rather than admit that maybe you were wrong (there's no shame in that), you instead try to change physics to make it similar. When this is pointed out, suddenly f orbitals don't exist, or it's a red herring. Can you see how this might come across ridiculous?

Back to orbitals. It is clear that you do not know what they are, or even the history of how we came to our current understanding. I encourage you to change this and go read up on them. Until you can understand the mathematics and physics that allow us to construct the orbitals we all know and love today, you are in no position to tell anyone that it's wrong (much less propose your own idea). 

 

3 hours ago, studiot said:

77 replies and 725 views of this subject........... about 10 views per reply.

No I don't believe that either swansont or HypervalentIodine have downvoted you, that that is obviously possible.
and by the way, yes you are new, and if you had taken the time to look around you might have noticed that HypervalentIodine is in fact a Lady who tutors Phd chemistry students.

Lots of members have passed through,  look and say to themselves

"Do I want to deal with this poster"

You should reflect upon the answer to that.

 

I have already told you why I have continued to bother with this thread.

You have not picked up on that or asked anything about this.

It is a fact that many apparently unconnected physical phenomenon appear in abstract mathematical group theory.
I have retired and am not interested in further glory, as I have a dozen or more scientific papers to my name. If I have prompted you in that direction and it bears fruit, you are welcome. It will have advanced science.
But note that this thread has made its way to the trash can for other reasons.

 

Minor correction. I am a PhD student, I don't tutor them. I tutor chemistry all the way up to third year level. 

danking, I have not given you any rep points, positive or negative. That's not to say your posts haven't warranted them, though. 

3 hours ago, danking said:

Okay well look I have 3 down votes... I'm sure galileo had more than 3 down grades...  i expect it as a complex thinker it's a concrete thinker reaction to a complex thinker... 

Rest assured, you are not Galileo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, danking said:

"No, we don't delete threads, unless they are in violation of the rules (i.e. spam or profanity)" 

OMG apparently that is not true: 59a9c0c108bb4_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_18_56.thumb.png.be195c4a50319080d198cf57983bf07e.png

 

very Chinese of you... lol ... who needs Free Speech lol! 

No, we don't delete threads, unless they are in violation of the rules (i.e. spam or profanity)

This was deleted FYI... 

#

59a9c132602c5_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_20_35.png.b27ea13fb91188e4a848a2e33835e3fc.png

 

which when you click on Go To this post

 

59a9c150c8808_ScreenShot2017-09-01at21_20_25.thumb.png.035d2fb4c14795f314dbd4d98f5b47df.png

 

I deleted my own post after I saw that Phi had already replied. You, too, have the ability to edit what you post (for a limited time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

 

Er, what? If the electron thing was a red herring then we are once again back to the fact that your sequence is wrong, with no explanation as to why this doesn't matter. Your whole idea relies on this sequence and it's similarity to another sequence. It has been shown to you in detail how and where it is not similar, and rather than admit that maybe you were wrong (there's no shame in that), you instead try to change physics to make it similar. When this is pointed out, suddenly f orbitals don't exist, or it's a red herring. Can you see how this might come across ridiculous?

Back to orbitals. It is clear that you do not know what they are, or even the history of how we came to our current understanding. I encourage you to change this and go read up on them. Until you can understand the mathematics and physics that allow us to construct the orbitals we all know and love today, you are in no position to tell anyone that it's wrong (much less propose your own idea). 

 

Minor correction. I am a PhD student, I don't tutor them. I tutor chemistry all the way up to third year level. 

danking, I have not given you any rep points, positive or negative. That's not to say your posts haven't warranted them, though. 

Rest assured, you are not Galileo. 

How do you know Mr Iodine? 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

I deleted my own post after I saw that Phi had already replied. You, too, have the ability to edit what you post (for a limited time)

Why should I who is Phi? 

It's like repent... sinner... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, danking said:

who is Phi? 

Phi for All, who posted the modnote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Phi for All, who posted the modnote.

omg.... is this what the evil one has cum too?

seriously 

59a9de0d6cb35_ScreenShot2017-09-01at23_23_28.png.b2e4853ba056ad59523ad5f7b23c1262.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you going to reply to the substantive part of my previous post? 

And can you stop calling me Mr. It has been pointed out to you several times that I am female. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danking shouldn't you focus on your model, rather than insults?

You have a tool being offered when you post a model on a forum. That tool is that it is being examined by others...

Why post otherwise unless it is to get the opinions of others?

A smart person would look specifically at the comments and criticisms and look at strengthening their model to address those comments. Not get insulted to learn that more work will be needed...

PS Reputation points are a rather useless measurement of quality of posts. Its more of a poll of opinions of what random readers feel about a post. 

A side note question.

Why is there no attempt to show the different orbitals under the mathematical ??? All I see is pictures and words...

where is your probability functions for each orbital?

Little hint no mathematics means your model goes absolutely nowhere in the professional scientific community. You might want to address that trueism.

Instead of using pictures describe your model under the spherical harmonic and radial functions under QM...

Every pretty little picture you have posted has a mathematical model used to describe it, of particular importance to orbitals being the constructive and destructive interferences.

Show those interferences under math specific to your primes and show how the primes affect the functions involved in the principle quantum numbers. Via math not pictures....

Studiot mentioned grabbing attention of readers, I only truly appreciate models that show under math never pictures...

No professional physicist rely on pictures, they are literally meaningless except as approximate visual representations.

Lmao if you wish to associate my callsign to evil. I will save you the trouble.

Evil son of King Arthur

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, danking said:

omg.... is this what the evil one has cum too?

seriously 

59a9de0d6cb35_ScreenShot2017-09-01at23_23_28.png.b2e4853ba056ad59523ad5f7b23c1262.png

 

!

Moderator Note

Your attempts to cover up mistakes and ignorance and deflect attention negatively are agonizingly transparent, danking. Next time you post (not in this thread, which seems to be done), please focus more on the science and less on trying to make yourself look better by being uncivil. It's a poor tactic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.