You demand evidence and then ignore the evidence that is given and claim that it is baseless.

Bigfoot doesn't count as evidence that unicorns exist, with unicorns being evidence that bigfoot exists. Evidence is some experimental result that confirms the proposition in some falsifiable way.

You demand evidence and then ignore the evidence that is given and claim that it is baseless.

 

Your initial claim is that:

 

One possible explanation is that most of the electrons mass (and perhaps some of its charge) has fallen to the centre.

Perhaps even existing in a completely separate system of shells surrounding the nucleus.

 

But there is no physical mechanism for some of the mass and charge to move separately.

 

So you invented the explanation that electrons are composite particles. (To make that work, you have to invent some new unknown particles "notquarks" that behave in previously unknown ways.)

 

Now you are saying that the evidence that electrons are composite is your initial suggestion that electron mass could be separated. But there is no reason to think that happens.

 

 

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question" is committed when someone attempts to prove a proposition based on a premise that itself requires proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

 

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Read on dude

 

This could also explain why electrons prefer to fill the 6s shell before the 4f shell. One would expect the 6s electron to fall into the 4f subshell since the 4f shell is closer to the nucleus. But it doesnt. The 6s shell is further from the nucleus but if part of the 6s electrons mass (and charge) fell further toward the center than does part of the 4f electrons mass (and charge) then it would be energetically more favorable

I am tempted to think that you're being deliberately obtuse

orbitals are meaningless unless you can prove the electron is a composite particle. The last post doesn't do anything to support that hypothesis.

 

Secondly you need to go through all the related math. Ie calculate the mass of each particle, calculate the spin statistics, parity, color charge, isospin, and electromagnetic charge.

 

You haven't even looked at the particle decay and creation rules in terms of the eightfold way

I am tempted to think that you're being deliberately obtuse

In all honesty this shoe is upon your feet as your ignoring the mentioned conservation rules.

Read on dude

 

 

I am tempted to think that you're being deliberately obtuse

 

 

All you have is unsupported speculation that is not supported by any evidence.

How is your idea falsifiable? How does it exclude other explanations that would be allowed under mainstream physics?

The existence of metallic hydrogen also suggests that there exists a second set of shells closer to the nucleus than the "ground state" of hydrogen.

The existence of metallic hydrogen also suggests that there exists a second set of shells closer to the nucleus than the "ground state" of hydrogen.

 

 

 

How does it "suggest" that? How about including some science with your conjecture. And how about answering questions put to you, instead of jumping to the next outlandish claim?