| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"A.S." |
| Date: |
14 Feb 2005 06:56:09 PM |
| Object: |
Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
Study the above illustrations of Ken Seto atomic model of the
hydrogen atom. Isn't it the electrons are so far away from the
nucleus, how can the above makes sense? Seto always mentions how
no one can debunk him. That's because he doesn't offer enough
details. The above illustration and some quotes below came from
Seto book itself. I borrowed it from a friend to debunk it. I
pity crackpots when they wasted too many years self-deluded which
could have spent elsewhere. I hope Bjoern or other physics wizards
can point out more flaws of the Seto atomic model as detailed
in this message and the accompanying illustrations (you must
click the above url to get an idea of it all). Should Seto
successfully defend them all and gives a convincing experiment
that can survive the scrutiny of scientists everywhere. He wins a
Nobel.
Quoting Ken Seto in his book: (Impt, see the illustrations above to
understand what he is saying)
Model Mechanics
The Structure of Atoms
The Model Mechanical description of the structure of an atom is
much more realistic. The nucleus of an atom is formed by the
stacked and electromagnetic interactions of the S-Particles of
the up-quarks and down-quarks. The electrons are orbiting
S-Particles around these stacked up-quarks and down quarks. The
relevant question for this description is- how does an electron
manage to maintain an orbit around the nucleus without spiraling
into the nucleus? To answer this question, let us examine the
simplest of all the atoms, the hydrogen atom. The nucleus of a
hydrogen atom is a proton that is shown schematically in Fig.
2.12. Now let us introduce an electron to the proton--now it
becomes a hydrogen atom Fig.2.14. Within the nucleus, the
down-quark is in an orbiting motion around the up-quarks. The
direction of the orbit is such that it is the same as that of the
S-particles (clockwise direction) of the stacked up-quarks.
Similarly, the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same
as that of th e down-quark . Now let us examine the forces that
these particles are exerting on each other. The stacked upquarks
exert an attractive force on the down-quark and the electron, and
the down-quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron. At
ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state. There is only room for one more electron at
the ground state orbit. The reason is that the electrons exert a
repulsive force on each other and therefore, they must maintain a
proper distance from each other: The ground state orbit is the
diameter of the hydrogen atom. This orbiting scheme, by the way,
does not violate Pauli's exclusion principle that two electrons
cannot have the same quanturn state. The S-Particles of these
electrons are orbiting in the opposite direction. In quantum
mechanical terms, they have the opposite spins.
It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron
will feel a repulsive force, while outside the ground state orbit
the electron will feel an attractive force. These unique
properties enable the electron to absorb and emit energy in
discrete packets. The following diagram will help us to visualize
how energy and radiation are being absorbed and emitted by a
hydrogen atom.
The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum.
The step by step process is as follows. Previously, I have
illustrated that at the ground state orbit there is no net force
exerted on the electron by the quarks in the nucleus. However,
when an electron is exposed to a quantum of energy, it will
absorb that specific energy immediately. This will elevate it
into a higher orbit. At this higher orbit, the electron will feel
a net attractive force from the nucleus. This net attractive
force will cause the electron to lose energy gradually as it
spirals inward toward the ground state orbit. As the electron
orbits behind the nucleus, it is cut off from the energy source
completely. This causes it to lose all of its absorbed energy and
drop back to the ground state orbit immediately. The energy
emitted by this process will appear to us as discrete and lumpy,
and that is exactly what was found.
The gradual loss of energy by the electron gives rise to its
unusual shifted orbit and this shifted orbit is known as the fine
structure of the hydrogen atom. With quantum mechanics, this
shifted orbit is interpreted as the maelstrom of activities of
the virtual particles that buzz around the electron. Clearly, the
above Model Mechanical explanation is much more preferred. The
shifted orbit of the electron was discovered experimentally by
Willis Lamb in 1947 and it is called the Lamb's shift (or the
fine st ructure of the hydrogen atom). Willis Lamb was awarded
the Nobel Prize for this finding.
It was shown previously that the nucleus of an atom is formed by
the stacked interactions of protons and neutrons. Therefore,
looking at a nucleus sideways, it will appear to be cylindrical,
instead of the normal concept that it is spherical. The electrons
of an atom would orbit around the protons in the nucleus. The
ground state orbit of a proton is able to accommodate two
electrons. The reason is that the repulsive force between the
electrons is preventing any more electrons to come into this
orbit. Since the ground state orbit of a hydrogen atom has only
one electron, therefore it is actively seeking another electron
to complete this orbit. This is what gives the hydrogen atom the
chemical reactivity. Also, this is what gives the hydrogen atom
the ability to share an electron with another atom. This sharing
of an electron is known as hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen bonding is
unquestionably the most important chemical process of life
because it gives rise to all the complex molecules of life. The r
ules governin g the orbits of the electrons in a heavy atom are
much more complex than that for hydrogen because the repulsive
forces among all the electrons must also be considered. It is
beyond the scope of this book to deal with this subject in
detail. However, the structures of helium, lithium, beryllium and
boron are shown as follows.
.
|
|
| User: "Dr. Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
15 Feb 2005 03:59:36 PM |
|
|
"A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message news:<1108428969.895792.151670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
Study the above illustrations of Ken Seto atomic model of the
hydrogen atom.
[snip]
Orbitals have been measured. Take a look at
"Direct observation of d-orbital holes and Cu-Cu bonding in Cu2O",
J. M. Zuo, M. Kim, M. O'Keeffe & J. C. H. Spence
Nature, volume 401, pp 49-52, September 1999.
The first paragraph is free at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v401/n6748/abs/401049a0_fs.html
main experimental image at
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif
where he overlays the data with a box to show where the crystal is.
Model that without QM!
See also
"Tomographic imaging of molecular orbitals"
J. ITATANI, J. LEVESQUE, D. ZEIDLER, HIROMICHI NIIKURA H. PÉPIN, J. C.
KIEFFER3, P. B. CORKUM & D. M. VILLENEUVE
Nature volume 432, pp 867 - 871, 16 December 2004
where the authors image the molecular N2 bonding orbital. The abstract
is at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7019/abs/nature03183_fs.html
In other words, experiments have been made and not only do orbitals
exist in both atomic and molecular cases, they look just as QM says
they do.
best,
BR
p.s. apologies if this post appears twice
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
15 Feb 2005 03:47:41 AM |
|
|
A.S. wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
Study the above illustrations of Ken Seto atomic model of the
hydrogen atom. Isn't it the electrons are so far away from the
nucleus, how can the above makes sense?
Well, he says that the illustration is "schematic" - so you can't
take him to task for using wrong distances in it.
Seto always mentions how
no one can debunk him. That's because he doesn't offer enough
details. The above illustration and some quotes below came from
Seto book itself. I borrowed it from a friend to debunk it. I
pity crackpots when they wasted too many years self-deluded which
could have spent elsewhere. I hope Bjoern or other physics wizards
can point out more flaws of the Seto atomic model as detailed
in this message and the accompanying illustrations (you must
click the above url to get an idea of it all).
With even a rudimentary knowledge of physics, you should be able to
find lots of flaws already on your own.
Should Seto
successfully defend them all and gives a convincing experiment
that can survive the scrutiny of scientists everywhere. He wins a
Nobel.
Well, in Seto's opinion, he will be succesful. In the opinion of
everyone other, he won't.
Notice that I killfiled Seto, so I won't be able to see his answers
directly.
Quoting Ken Seto in his book: (Impt, see the illustrations above to
understand what he is saying)
Model Mechanics
The Structure of Atoms
The Model Mechanical description of the structure of an atom is
much more realistic.
Good joke.
The nucleus of an atom is formed by the
stacked and electromagnetic interactions of the S-Particles of
the up-quarks and down-quarks. The electrons are orbiting
S-Particles around these stacked up-quarks and down quarks. The
relevant question for this description is- how does an electron
manage to maintain an orbit around the nucleus without spiraling
into the nucleus? To answer this question, let us examine the
simplest of all the atoms, the hydrogen atom. The nucleus of a
hydrogen atom is a proton that is shown schematically in Fig.
2.12. Now let us introduce an electron to the proton--now it
becomes a hydrogen atom Fig.2.14. Within the nucleus, the
down-quark is in an orbiting motion around the up-quarks. The
direction of the orbit is such that it is the same as that of the
S-particles (clockwise direction) of the stacked up-quarks.
As already asked elsewhere: "clockwise" as seen from which end of the
E-string?
Similarly, the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same
as that of the down-quark . Now let us examine the forces that
these particles are exerting on each other. The stacked upquarks
exert an attractive force on the down-quark and the electron, and
the down-quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the particles.
He only gives a vague analogy to magnetic forces somewhere.
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit. Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics.
There is only room for one more electron at
the ground state orbit. The reason is that the electrons exert a
repulsive force on each other and therefore, they must maintain a
proper distance from each other:
So what? Nothing quantitative here. So how does he know that this
"proper distance" which is required is so large that only one more
electron fits into the ground state "orbit"?
The ground state orbit is the
diameter of the hydrogen atom.
Bonus point for Seto if he can actually calculate this diameter using
his model.
This orbiting scheme, by the way,
does not violate Pauli's exclusion principle that two electrons
cannot have the same quanturn state.
Well, in Seto's model, something like "quantum states" does not even
exist - so why does he feel the need to address the Pauli principle?
The S-Particles of these
electrons are orbiting in the opposite direction. In quantum
mechanical terms, they have the opposite spins.
Notice that no evidence is presented anywhere that spin has anything
to do with the direction of the orbitting of the S-particles. E.g.
the Stern-Gerlach experiment is nowhere explained (AFAIK).
It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron
will feel a repulsive force, while outside the ground state orbit
the electron will feel an attractive force.
Complete utter hogwash.
If the electron is on an orbit, there is an attractive force on it.
Otherwise, there couldn't be an orbit! Again, Seto fails to understand
centripetal forces.
BTW, above he said that in the ground state orbit, there is both an
attractive and a repulsive force, which are in equilibrium with each
other. He seems to contradict that here.
Also, what does he suggest here exactly? That there is one single
orbital radius for which there is a repulsive force, and for all other
radii, there is an attractive force? Shouldn't there be a continuous
transition from one case to the other?
These unique
properties enable the electron to absorb and emit energy in
discrete packets. The following diagram will help us to visualize
how energy and radiation are being absorbed and emitted by a
hydrogen atom.
The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum.
The step by step process is as follows. Previously, I have
illustrated that at the ground state orbit there is no net force
exerted on the electron by the quarks in the nucleus.
And I have explained why that is hogwash, and shows that Seto does not
even understand classical mechanics.
However,
when an electron is exposed to a quantum of energy, it will
absorb that specific energy immediately.
No matter how big that quantum is?
This will elevate it into a higher orbit.
Notice that Seto has not explained why a higher orbit corresponds
to higher energy.
At this higher orbit, the electron will feel
a net attractive force from the nucleus. This net attractive
force will cause the electron to lose energy gradually as it
spirals inward toward the ground state orbit.
But electrons do not lose energy gradually. Excited atoms give off
energy only in discrete packages (photons), not continuously.
As the electron
orbits behind the nucleus, it is cut off from the energy source
completely.
"behind"??? As seen from where?
And what energy source?
This causes it to lose all of its absorbed energy
Why? How?
Complete hogwash!
and drop back to the ground state orbit immediately. The energy
emitted by this process will appear to us as discrete and lumpy,
and that is exactly what was found.
Just above he said that the electron loses energy *gradually*.....
The gradual loss of energy by the electron
And here again!
gives rise to its
unusual shifted orbit and this shifted orbit is known as the fine
structure of the hydrogen atom.
Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!
He has not the *faintest* clue what he is talking about!
With quantum mechanics, this
shifted orbit is interpreted as the maelstrom of activities of
the virtual particles that buzz around the electron.
He confuses the Lamb shift with the fine structure here...
Clearly, the
above Model Mechanical explanation is much more preferred.
ROTFL BITC!
Notice that he has not presented one single number! Whereas standard
QM can calculate the hydrogen spectrum to an accuracy of at least 6
significant digits!
The shifted orbit of the electron was discovered experimentally by
Willis Lamb in 1947 and it is called the Lamb's shift (or the
fine st ructure of the hydrogen atom).
No, the Lamb shift is *not* the same thing as the fine structure.
And notice that Seto has not presented even the tiniest piece of
evidence that his model can actually explain the Lamb shift. He simply
asserted that it is due to "a shifted orbit", and apparently thinks that
this assertion is an explanation.
Willis Lamb was awarded the Nobel Prize for this finding.
It was shown previously that the nucleus of an atom is formed by
the stacked interactions of protons and neutrons.
Asserted, not shown.
Seto shares this misconception with Porat and many other cranks: that
asserting something means that this has been actually shown to be true...
Therefore,
looking at a nucleus sideways, it will appear to be cylindrical,
instead of the normal concept that it is spherical.
Seto is free to explain the measured quadropole moments of nuclei.
The electrons
of an atom would orbit around the protons in the nucleus. The
ground state orbit of a proton is able to accommodate two
electrons. The reason is that the repulsive force between the
electrons is preventing any more electrons to come into this
orbit.
No calculation which would show that the repulsive force has a magnitude
which would allow exactly two electrons, not less and not more. Simply
asserted.
Since the ground state orbit of a hydrogen atom has only
one electron, therefore it is actively seeking another electron
to complete this orbit.
How does he get from "there is room for an additional electron" to
"the atom is actively seeking for an additional electron"? A completely
unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
This is what gives the hydrogen atom the
chemical reactivity.
According to his logic, in a hydrogen molecule, with two hydrogen atoms,
there should be room for four electrons. Why has this never been observed?
(BTW, a hydrogen atom with two electrons, H^-, is indeed possible.
Apparently Seto is unware of that, since he did not mention this.
Again a bonus point to him if he can calculate the binding energy
of that state correctly.)
Also, this is what gives the hydrogen atom
the ability to share an electron with another atom.
How does he get from "there is room for two electrons in the hydrogen
ground state" to "a hydrogen atom can share an electron with another
atom"? Again, a completely unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
This sharing
of an electron is known as hydrogen bonding.
Vaguely right.
Hydrogen bonding is
unquestionably the most important chemical process of life
because it gives rise to all the complex molecules of life.
Utter nonsense again. The most important chemical binding for life
is the binding between carbon atoms.
The rules governing the orbits of the electrons in a heavy atom are
much more complex than that for hydrogen because the repulsive
forces among all the electrons must also be considered.
Again, he got something right here. Congratulations.
It is
beyond the scope of this book to deal with this subject in
detail. However, the structures of helium, lithium, beryllium and
boron are shown as follows.
And yet again, he does not provide even one single number for comparison
with observations.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
17 Feb 2005 11:26:33 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cusgft$4j$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
A.S. wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
Study the above illustrations of Ken Seto atomic model of the
hydrogen atom. Isn't it the electrons are so far away from the
nucleus, how can the above makes sense?
Well, he says that the illustration is "schematic" - so you can't
take him to task for using wrong distances in it.
Seto always mentions how
no one can debunk him. That's because he doesn't offer enough
details. The above illustration and some quotes below came from
Seto book itself. I borrowed it from a friend to debunk it. I
pity crackpots when they wasted too many years self-deluded which
could have spent elsewhere. I hope Bjoern or other physics wizards
can point out more flaws of the Seto atomic model as detailed
in this message and the accompanying illustrations (you must
click the above url to get an idea of it all).
With even a rudimentary knowledge of physics, you should be able to
find lots of flaws already on your own.
Apparaently you don't understand the rudimentary of real physics.
Should Seto
successfully defend them all and gives a convincing experiment
that can survive the scrutiny of scientists everywhere. He wins a
Nobel.
There is a convincing experiment described in the following link (page 3):
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Well, in Seto's opinion, he will be succesful. In the opinion of
everyone other, he won't.
Everyone's opinion consisted of mere hand -waving so far.
Notice that I killfiled Seto, so I won't be able to see his answers
directly.
ROTFLOL....you killfiled me but you keep on reading my post and pretended
that you have killfiled me.
Quoting Ken Seto in his book: (Impt, see the illustrations above to
understand what he is saying)
Model Mechanics
The Structure of Atoms
The Model Mechanical description of the structure of an atom is
much more realistic.
Good joke.
The nucleus of an atom is formed by the
stacked and electromagnetic interactions of the S-Particles of
the up-quarks and down-quarks. The electrons are orbiting
S-Particles around these stacked up-quarks and down quarks. The
relevant question for this description is- how does an electron
manage to maintain an orbit around the nucleus without spiraling
into the nucleus? To answer this question, let us examine the
simplest of all the atoms, the hydrogen atom. The nucleus of a
hydrogen atom is a proton that is shown schematically in Fig.
2.12. Now let us introduce an electron to the proton--now it
becomes a hydrogen atom Fig.2.14. Within the nucleus, the
down-quark is in an orbiting motion around the up-quarks. The
direction of the orbit is such that it is the same as that of the
S-particles (clockwise direction) of the stacked up-quarks.
As already asked elsewhere: "clockwise" as seen from which end of the
E-string?
Already responded in the thread "Is Ken Seto a genius or mad Man". With the
exception of the electron neutrino all the S-Particles are in the same state
of Chirality motion (left handed or right handed cork screw motion) along
the E-String(s) to which they are confined. Therefore viewing this from a
observable particle (such as an electron or a positron) point of view the
S-Particle of another observable particle is in a state of clockwise or
counterclockwise orbiting motion around an E-String..
Similarly, the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same
as that of the down-quark . Now let us examine the forces that
these particles are exerting on each other. The stacked upquarks
exert an attractive force on the down-quark and the electron, and
the down-quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the particles.
Sigh.....when S-Particles are moving in the same direction in the E-Matrix
the force is attractive and if the S-Particles are moving in the opposite
direction in the E-Matrix the force between them is repulsive.
This is all described in detail;s in the following link:
He only gives a vague analogy to magnetic forces somewhere.
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit. Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics.
There is only room for one more electron at
the ground state orbit. The reason is that the electrons exert a
repulsive force on each other and therefore, they must maintain a
proper distance from each other:
So what? Nothing quantitative here. So how does he know that this
"proper distance" which is required is so large that only one more
electron fits into the ground state "orbit"?
The ground state orbit is the
diameter of the hydrogen atom.
Bonus point for Seto if he can actually calculate this diameter using
his model.
This orbiting scheme, by the way,
does not violate Pauli's exclusion principle that two electrons
cannot have the same quanturn state.
Well, in Seto's model, something like "quantum states" does not even
exist - so why does he feel the need to address the Pauli principle?
The S-Particles of these
electrons are orbiting in the opposite direction. In quantum
mechanical terms, they have the opposite spins.
Notice that no evidence is presented anywhere that spin has anything
to do with the direction of the orbitting of the S-particles. E.g.
the Stern-Gerlach experiment is nowhere explained (AFAIK).
It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron
will feel a repulsive force, while outside the ground state orbit
the electron will feel an attractive force.
Complete utter hogwash.
If the electron is on an orbit, there is an attractive force on it.
Otherwise, there couldn't be an orbit! Again, Seto fails to understand
centripetal forces.
BTW, above he said that in the ground state orbit, there is both an
attractive and a repulsive force, which are in equilibrium with each
other. He seems to contradict that here.
Also, what does he suggest here exactly? That there is one single
orbital radius for which there is a repulsive force, and for all other
radii, there is an attractive force? Shouldn't there be a continuous
transition from one case to the other?
These unique
properties enable the electron to absorb and emit energy in
discrete packets. The following diagram will help us to visualize
how energy and radiation are being absorbed and emitted by a
hydrogen atom.
The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum.
The step by step process is as follows. Previously, I have
illustrated that at the ground state orbit there is no net force
exerted on the electron by the quarks in the nucleus.
And I have explained why that is hogwash, and shows that Seto does not
even understand classical mechanics.
However,
when an electron is exposed to a quantum of energy, it will
absorb that specific energy immediately.
No matter how big that quantum is?
This will elevate it into a higher orbit.
Notice that Seto has not explained why a higher orbit corresponds
to higher energy.
At this higher orbit, the electron will feel
a net attractive force from the nucleus. This net attractive
force will cause the electron to lose energy gradually as it
spirals inward toward the ground state orbit.
But electrons do not lose energy gradually. Excited atoms give off
energy only in discrete packages (photons), not continuously.
As the electron
orbits behind the nucleus, it is cut off from the energy source
completely.
"behind"??? As seen from where?
And what energy source?
This causes it to lose all of its absorbed energy
Why? How?
Complete hogwash!
and drop back to the ground state orbit immediately. The energy
emitted by this process will appear to us as discrete and lumpy,
and that is exactly what was found.
Just above he said that the electron loses energy *gradually*.....
The gradual loss of energy by the electron
And here again!
gives rise to its
unusual shifted orbit and this shifted orbit is known as the fine
structure of the hydrogen atom.
Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!!
He has not the *faintest* clue what he is talking about!
With quantum mechanics, this
shifted orbit is interpreted as the maelstrom of activities of
the virtual particles that buzz around the electron.
He confuses the Lamb shift with the fine structure here...
Clearly, the
above Model Mechanical explanation is much more preferred.
ROTFL BITC!
Notice that he has not presented one single number! Whereas standard
QM can calculate the hydrogen spectrum to an accuracy of at least 6
significant digits!
The shifted orbit of the electron was discovered experimentally by
Willis Lamb in 1947 and it is called the Lamb's shift (or the
fine st ructure of the hydrogen atom).
No, the Lamb shift is *not* the same thing as the fine structure.
And notice that Seto has not presented even the tiniest piece of
evidence that his model can actually explain the Lamb shift. He simply
asserted that it is due to "a shifted orbit", and apparently thinks that
this assertion is an explanation.
Willis Lamb was awarded the Nobel Prize for this finding.
It was shown previously that the nucleus of an atom is formed by
the stacked interactions of protons and neutrons.
Asserted, not shown.
Seto shares this misconception with Porat and many other cranks: that
asserting something means that this has been actually shown to be true...
Therefore,
looking at a nucleus sideways, it will appear to be cylindrical,
instead of the normal concept that it is spherical.
Seto is free to explain the measured quadropole moments of nuclei.
The electrons
of an atom would orbit around the protons in the nucleus. The
ground state orbit of a proton is able to accommodate two
electrons. The reason is that the repulsive force between the
electrons is preventing any more electrons to come into this
orbit.
No calculation which would show that the repulsive force has a magnitude
which would allow exactly two electrons, not less and not more. Simply
asserted.
Since the ground state orbit of a hydrogen atom has only
one electron, therefore it is actively seeking another electron
to complete this orbit.
How does he get from "there is room for an additional electron" to
"the atom is actively seeking for an additional electron"? A completely
unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
This is what gives the hydrogen atom the
chemical reactivity.
According to his logic, in a hydrogen molecule, with two hydrogen atoms,
there should be room for four electrons. Why has this never been observed?
(BTW, a hydrogen atom with two electrons, H^-, is indeed possible.
Apparently Seto is unware of that, since he did not mention this.
Again a bonus point to him if he can calculate the binding energy
of that state correctly.)
Also, this is what gives the hydrogen atom
the ability to share an electron with another atom.
How does he get from "there is room for two electrons in the hydrogen
ground state" to "a hydrogen atom can share an electron with another
atom"? Again, a completely unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
This sharing
of an electron is known as hydrogen bonding.
Vaguely right.
Hydrogen bonding is
unquestionably the most important chemical process of life
because it gives rise to all the complex molecules of life.
Utter nonsense again. The most important chemical binding for life
is the binding between carbon atoms.
The rules governing the orbits of the electrons in a heavy atom are
much more complex than that for hydrogen because the repulsive
forces among all the electrons must also be considered.
Again, he got something right here. Congratulations.
It is
beyond the scope of this book to deal with this subject in
detail. However, the structures of helium, lithium, beryllium and
boron are shown as follows.
And yet again, he does not provide even one single number for comparison
with observations.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
17 Feb 2005 12:43:33 PM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cusgft$4j$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
A.S. wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/chrod68/image/39778113/original
Continue answering Bjoern's debunking of my theory:
As already asked elsewhere: "clockwise" as seen from which end of the
E-string?
Similarly, the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same
as that of the down-quark . Now let us examine the forces that
these particles are exerting on each other. The stacked upquarks
exert an attractive force on the down-quark and the electron, and
the down-quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the particles.
He only gives a vague analogy to magnetic forces somewhere.
Look up the following paper how the different forces of nature are arises
from the concept of absolute motion in the E-Matrix.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit.
You are wrong. The S-Particle will maintain its state of absolute orbiting
motion because the E-Strings are repulsive to each oither and the
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings. These are the postulates of
Model Mechanics.
Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics.
You are stupid. The unique properties of the E-String and the S-Particle
enables an S-Particle to maintain its state of absolute motion in the
E-Matrix.
There is only room for one more electron at
the ground state orbit. The reason is that the electrons exert a
repulsive force on each other and therefore, they must maintain a
proper distance from each other:
So what? Nothing quantitative here. So how does he know that this
"proper distance" which is required is so large that only one more
electron fits into the ground state "orbit"?
When the electrons are at the opposite side of the nucles the repulsive
force between them is not sufficient to overcome the attractive force exert
on them by the nucleus.
lculate this diameter using
his model.
This orbiting scheme, by the way,
does not violate Pauli's exclusion principle that two electrons
cannot have the same quanturn state.
Well, in Seto's model, something like "quantum states" does not even
exist - so why does he feel the need to address the Pauli principle?
Wrong.....quantum states is given a different interpretation in my model.
direction. In quantum
mechanical terms, they have the opposite spins.
Notice that no evidence is presented anywhere that spin has anything
to do with the direction of the orbitting of the S-particles. E.g.
the Stern-Gerlach experiment is nowhere explained (AFAIK).
It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron
will feel a repulsive force, while outside the ground state orbit
the electron will feel an attractive force.
Complete utter hogwash.
Hand waving is not an argument.
bit, there is an attractive force on it.
Otherwise, there couldn't be an orbit! Again, Seto fails to understand
centripetal forces.
You are an idiot....the electron is able to maintain its ground state orbit
because of the attractive electromgnetic force exert on it by the stacked up
quarks and the repulsive electromagnetic force exert on it by the down quark
radict that here.
Also, what does he suggest here exactly? That there is one single
orbital radius for which there is a repulsive force, and for all other
radii, there is an attractive force? Shouldn't there be a continuous
transition from one case to the other?
No... the up quarks exerts an attractive force on the electron and the down
quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
These unique
properties enable the electron to absorb and emit energy in
discrete packets. The following diagram will help us to visualize
how energy and radiation are being absorbed and emitted by a
hydrogen atom.
The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum.
The step by step process is as follows. Previously, I have
illustrated that at the ground state orbit there is no net force
exerted on the electron by the quarks in the nucleus.
And I have explained why that is hogwash, and shows that Seto does not
even understand classical mechanics.
Your failure to understand the forces exerted by the E-Strings on the
S-Particle is not a debunking of my model.
However,
when an electron is exposed to a quantum of energy, it will
absorb that specific energy immediately.
No matter how big that quantum is?
Different quantums will result in a different increased from the ground
state orbit.
This will elevate it into a higher orbit.
Notice that Setoa larger quantum of has not explained why a higher orbit
corresponds
to higher energy.
Sigh...higher orbit will mean that the electron will feel a higher
attractive force from stacked up quarks and less repulsive force from the
down quark. When the electron drop back to the ground state orbit it will
release a larger quantum of energy.
At this higher orbit, the electron will feel
a net attractive force from the nucleus. This net attractive
force will cause the electron to lose energy gradually as it
spirals inward toward the ground state orbit.
But electrons do not lose energy gradually. Excited atoms give off
energy only in discrete packages (photons), not continuously.
This is what causes the orbit shift (as shown in the diagram) and this is
also known as the lamb's shift. When the electron drop back to the ground
state orbit it will give out a discrete quantum of energy.
As the electron
orbits behind the nucleus, it is cut off from the energy source
completely.
"behind"??? As seen from where?
as seen from the source.
And what energy source?
The wave or distortion in the E-Strings.
This causes it to lose all of its absorbed energy
Why? How?
No energy is avilable for it to maintain a higher orbit. and the attractive
force is pulling it back to the ground state orbit.
Complete hogwash!
You are a complete hogwash.
and drop back to the ground state orbit immediately. The energy
emitted by this process will appear to us as discrete and lumpy,
and that is exactly what was found.
Just above he said that the electron loses energy *gradually*...
Hey idiot....That's what causes the lamb shift..
The gradual loss of energy by the electron
And here again!
Idiot.
With quantum mechanics, this
shifted orbit is interpreted as the maelstrom of activities of
the virtual particles that buzz around the electron.
He confuses the Lamb shift with the fine structure constant.
Notice that he has not presented one single number! Whereas standard
QM can calculate the hydrogen spectrum to an accuracy of at least 6
significant digits!
So what??? Model Mechanics provides the proper mechanism for the QFT math.
The shifted orbit of the electron was discovered experimentally by
Willis Lamb in 1947 and it is called the Lamb's shift (or the
fine st ructure of the hydrogen atom).
No, the Lamb shift is *not* the same thing as the fine structure.
I agree. I goofed.
And notice that Seto has not presented even the tiniest piece of
evidence that his model can actually explain the Lamb shift. He simply
asserted that it is due to "a shifted orbit", and apparently thinks that
this assertion is an explanation.
The lamb's shift is a natural outcome of the interactions the electron with
the nucleus in Model mechanics.
Willis Lamb was awarded the Nobel Prize for this finding.
It was shown previously that the nucleus of an atom is formed by
the stacked interactions of protons and neutrons.
Asserted, not shown.
Hey idiot it is shown.
Seto shares this misconception with Porat and many other cranks: that
asserting something means that this has been actually shown to be true...
you are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
Therefore,
looking at a nucleus sideways, it will appear to be cylindrical,
instead of the normal concept that it is spherical.
Seto is free to explain the measured quadropole moments of nuclei.
The electrons
of an atom would orbit around the protons in the nucleus. The
ground state orbit of a proton is able to accommodate two
electrons. The reason is that the repulsive force between the
electrons is preventing any more electrons to come into this
orbit.
No calculation which would show that the repulsive force has a magnitude
which would allow exactly two electrons, not less and not more. Simply
asserted.
The QFT math can be used. The field is a distoretion in the E-Matrix. The
interaction of virtual particles is the reaction of the orbiting S-Particle
reacting to the distortion in the E-Stirngs to which the orbiting S-Particle
is confined.
Since the ground state orbit of a hydrogen atom has only
one electron, therefore it is actively seeking another electron
to complete this orbit.
How does he get from "there is room for an additional electron" to
"the atom is actively seeking for an additional electron"? A completely
unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
No huge jump. a hydrogen will actively seek another electron to compltely
filling the ground state orbit. This activity is know as sharing of electron
with another atom.
This is what gives the hydrogen atom the
chemical reactivity.
According to his logic, in a hydrogen molecule, with two hydrogen atoms,
there should be room for four electrons. Why has this never been observed?
This is your stupid logic not mine.
(BTW, a hydrogen atom with two electrons, H^-, is indeed possible.
Apparently Seto is unware of that, since he did not mention this.
Again a bonus point to him if he can calculate the binding energy
of that state correctly.)
Also, this is what gives the hydrogen atom
the ability to share an electron with another atom.
How does he get from "there is room for two electrons in the hydrogen
ground state" to "a hydrogen atom can share an electron with another
atom"? Again, a completely unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
Sigh....the hydrogen is sharing an electron in another atom. That is what
hydorgen bonding is all about.
This sharing
of an electron is known as hydrogen bonding.
Vaguely right.
Hydrogen bonding is
unquestionably the most important chemical process of life
because it gives rise to all the complex molecules of life.
Utter nonsense again. The most important chemical binding for life
is the binding between carbon atoms.
Carbon bonding also involves sharing of an electron to complete the shelf of
each carbon atom.
The rules governing the orbits of the electrons in a heavy atom are
much more complex than that for hydrogen because the repulsive
forces among all the electrons must also be considered.
Again, he got something right here. Congratulations.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "A.S." |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
17 Feb 2005 09:56:09 PM |
|
|
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman (he
mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below). So
kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him. Try to temporarily remove the killfile of him until he
gets killed by sheer theoretical reasoning. The following is
the reply of Ken Seto to you.
kenseto wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cusgft$4j$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
As already asked elsewhere: "clockwise" as seen from which end of
the
E-string?
Already responded in the thread "Is Ken Seto a genius or mad Man". With
the
exception of the electron neutrino all the S-Particles are in the same
state
of Chirality motion (left handed or right handed cork screw motion)
along
the E-String(s) to which they are confined. Therefore viewing this from
a
observable particle (such as an electron or a positron) point of view
the
S-Particle of another observable particle is in a state of clockwise or
counterclockwise orbiting motion around an E-String..
Similarly, the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same
as that of the down-quark . Now let us examine the forces that
these particles are exerting on each other. The stacked upquarks
exert an attractive force on the down-quark and the electron, and
the down-quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the
particles.
Sigh.....when S-Particles are moving in the same direction in the
E-Matrix
the force is attractive and if the S-Particles are moving in the
opposite
direction in the E-Matrix the force between them is repulsive.
This is all described in detail;s in the following link:
Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the
particles.
He only gives a vague analogy to magnetic forces somewhere.
Look up the following paper how the different forces of nature are
arises
from the concept of absolute motion in the E-Matrix.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting
on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit.
You are wrong. The S-Particle will maintain its state of absolute
orbiting
motion because the E-Strings are repulsive to each oither and the
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings. These are the postulates of
Model Mechanics.
Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics.
You are stupid. The unique properties of the E-String and the
S-Particle
enables an S-Particle to maintain its state of absolute motion in the
E-Matrix.
There is only room for one more electron at
the ground state orbit. The reason is that the electrons exert a
repulsive force on each other and therefore, they must maintain a
proper distance from each other:
So what? Nothing quantitative here. So how does he know that this
"proper distance" which is required is so large that only one more
electron fits into the ground state "orbit"?
When the electrons are at the opposite side of the nucles the repulsive
force between them is not sufficient to overcome the attractive force
exert
on them by the nucleus.
lculate this diameter using
his model.
This orbiting scheme, by the way,
does not violate Pauli's exclusion principle that two electrons
cannot have the same quanturn state.
Well, in Seto's model, something like "quantum states" does not
even
exist - so why does he feel the need to address the Pauli
principle?
Wrong.....quantum states is given a different interpretation in my
model.
direction. In quantum
mechanical terms, they have the opposite spins.
Notice that no evidence is presented anywhere that spin has
anything
to do with the direction of the orbitting of the S-particles. E.g.
the Stern-Gerlach experiment is nowhere explained (AFAIK).
It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron
will feel a repulsive force, while outside the ground state orbit
the electron will feel an attractive force.
Complete utter hogwash.
Hand waving is not an argument.
bit, there is an attractive force on it.
Otherwise, there couldn't be an orbit! Again, Seto fails to
understand
centripetal forces.
You are an idiot....the electron is able to maintain its ground state
orbit
because of the attractive electromgnetic force exert on it by the
stacked up
quarks and the repulsive electromagnetic force exert on it by the down
quark
radict that here.
Also, what does he suggest here exactly? That there is one single
orbital radius for which there is a repulsive force, and for all
other
radii, there is an attractive force? Shouldn't there be a
continuous
transition from one case to the other?
No... the up quarks exerts an attractive force on the electron and the
down
quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
These unique
properties enable the electron to absorb and emit energy in
discrete packets. The following diagram will help us to
visualize
how energy and radiation are being absorbed and emitted by a
hydrogen atom.
The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum.
The step by step process is as follows. Previously, I have
illustrated that at the ground state orbit there is no net force
exerted on the electron by the quarks in the nucleus.
And I have explained why that is hogwash, and shows that Seto does
not
even understand classical mechanics.
Your failure to understand the forces exerted by the E-Strings on the
S-Particle is not a debunking of my model.
However,
when an electron is exposed to a quantum of energy, it will
absorb that specific energy immediately.
No matter how big that quantum is?
Different quantums will result in a different increased from the ground
state orbit.
This will elevate it into a higher orbit.
Notice that Setoa larger quantum of has not explained why a higher
orbit
corresponds
to higher energy.
Sigh...higher orbit will mean that the electron will feel a higher
attractive force from stacked up quarks and less repulsive force from
the
down quark. When the electron drop back to the ground state orbit it
will
release a larger quantum of energy.
At this higher orbit, the electron will feel
a net attractive force from the nucleus. This net attractive
force will cause the electron to lose energy gradually as it
spirals inward toward the ground state orbit.
But electrons do not lose energy gradually. Excited atoms give off
energy only in discrete packages (photons), not continuously.
This is what causes the orbit shift (as shown in the diagram) and this
is
also known as the lamb's shift. When the electron drop back to the
ground
state orbit it will give out a discrete quantum of energy.
As the electron
orbits behind the nucleus, it is cut off from the energy source
completely.
"behind"??? As seen from where?
as seen from the source.
And what energy source?
The wave or distortion in the E-Strings.
This causes it to lose all of its absorbed energy
Why? How?
No energy is avilable for it to maintain a higher orbit. and the
attractive
force is pulling it back to the ground state orbit.
Complete hogwash!
You are a complete hogwash.
and drop back to the ground state orbit immediately. The energy
emitted by this process will appear to us as discrete and lumpy,
and that is exactly what was found.
Just above he said that the electron loses energy *gradually*...
Hey idiot....That's what causes the lamb shift..
The gradual loss of energy by the electron
And here again!
Idiot.
With quantum mechanics, this
shifted orbit is interpreted as the maelstrom of activities of
the virtual particles that buzz around the electron.
He confuses the Lamb shift with the fine structure constant.
Notice that he has not presented one single number! Whereas
standard
QM can calculate the hydrogen spectrum to an accuracy of at least 6
significant digits!
So what??? Model Mechanics provides the proper mechanism for the QFT
math.
The shifted orbit of the electron was discovered experimentally
by
Willis Lamb in 1947 and it is called the Lamb's shift (or the
fine st ructure of the hydrogen atom).
No, the Lamb shift is *not* the same thing as the fine structure.
I agree. I goofed.
And notice that Seto has not presented even the tiniest piece of
evidence that his model can actually explain the Lamb shift. He
simply
asserted that it is due to "a shifted orbit", and apparently thinks
that
this assertion is an explanation.
The lamb's shift is a natural outcome of the interactions the electron
with
the nucleus in Model mechanics.
Willis Lamb was awarded the Nobel Prize for this finding.
It was shown previously that the nucleus of an atom is formed by
the stacked interactions of protons and neutrons.
Asserted, not shown.
Hey idiot it is shown.
Seto shares this misconception with Porat and many other cranks:
that
asserting something means that this has been actually shown to be
true...
you are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
Therefore,
looking at a nucleus sideways, it will appear to be cylindrical,
instead of the normal concept that it is spherical.
Seto is free to explain the measured quadropole moments of nuclei.
The electrons
of an atom would orbit around the protons in the nucleus. The
ground state orbit of a proton is able to accommodate two
electrons. The reason is that the repulsive force between the
electrons is preventing any more electrons to come into this
orbit.
No calculation which would show that the repulsive force has a
magnitude
which would allow exactly two electrons, not less and not more.
Simply
asserted.
The QFT math can be used. The field is a distoretion in the E-Matrix.
The
interaction of virtual particles is the reaction of the orbiting
S-Particle
reacting to the distortion in the E-Stirngs to which the orbiting
S-Particle
is confined.
Since the ground state orbit of a hydrogen atom has only
one electron, therefore it is actively seeking another electron
to complete this orbit.
How does he get from "there is room for an additional electron" to
"the atom is actively seeking for an additional electron"? A
completely
unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
No huge jump. a hydrogen will actively seek another electron to
compltely
filling the ground state orbit. This activity is know as sharing of
electron
with another atom.
This is what gives the hydrogen atom the
chemical reactivity.
According to his logic, in a hydrogen molecule, with two hydrogen
atoms,
there should be room for four electrons. Why has this never been
observed?
This is your stupid logic not mine.
(BTW, a hydrogen atom with two electrons, H^-, is indeed possible.
Apparently Seto is unware of that, since he did not mention this.
Again a bonus point to him if he can calculate the binding energy
of that state correctly.)
Also, this is what gives the hydrogen atom
the ability to share an electron with another atom.
How does he get from "there is room for two electrons in the
hydrogen
ground state" to "a hydrogen atom can share an electron with
another
atom"? Again, a completely unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
Sigh....the hydrogen is sharing an electron in another atom. That is
what
hydorgen bonding is all about.
This sharing
of an electron is known as hydrogen bonding.
Vaguely right.
Hydrogen bonding is
unquestionably the most important chemical process of life
because it gives rise to all the complex molecules of life.
Utter nonsense again. The most important chemical binding for life
is the binding between carbon atoms.
Carbon bonding also involves sharing of an electron to complete the
shelf of
each carbon atom.
The rules governing the orbits of the electrons in a heavy atom
are
much more complex than that for hydrogen because the repulsive
forces among all the electrons must also be considered.
Again, he got something right here. Congratulations.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
18 Feb 2005 03:58:37 AM |
|
|
"A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message news:<1108698969.020782.137230@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman (he
mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below). So
kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him. Try to temporarily remove the killfile of him until he
gets killed by sheer theoretical reasoning. [snip]
Still no comment on my post I see.
Note I have found a free image of the N2 bonding orbital, see below.
How are the following two experiments explained??? Note that they have
measured the wavefunction itself (not just psi^2), and this comes out
as QM predicts.
Does Seto's model also predict this? If not, then a contradiction by
experiment surely counts as a debunking??? Or do experimental results
count for nothing around here? ;)
Orbitals have been measured. Take a look at
"Direct observation of d-orbital holes and Cu-Cu bonding in Cu2O",
J. M. Zuo, M. Kim, M. O'Keeffe & J. C. H. Spence
Nature, volume 401, pp 49-52, September 1999.
The first paragraph is free at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v401/n6748/abs/401049a0_fs.html
main experimental image at
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif
where he overlays the data with a box to show where the crystal is.
See also
"Tomographic imaging of molecular orbitals"
J. ITATANI, J. LEVESQUE, D. ZEIDLER, HIROMICHI NIIKURA H. PÉPIN, J. C.
KIEFFER3, P. B. CORKUM & D. M. VILLENEUVE
Nature volume 432, pp 867 - 871, 16 December 2004
where the authors image the molecular N2 bonding orbital. The abstract
is at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7019/abs/nature03183_fs.html
and main figure can be found half way down at
http://cibernautes.com/didaclopez/944/2670/
Figure caption I think approximately translates as
"One of the images obtained by the group of Villeneuve, which shows
the molecular orbital around the exterior of molecular N2, which
includes an amplitude region that encompasses both atoms and which is
unique. The images obtained coincide with the theoretical models of
the molecular orbital of diatomic nitrogen."
In other words, experiments have been made and not only do orbitals
exist, their wavefunctions look just as QM says they do.
best,
BR
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
18 Feb 2005 01:23:30 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Photon" <brendan.roycroft@nmrc.ie> wrote in message
news:b8f632e2.0502180158.77c36935@posting.google.com...
"A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message
news:<1108698969.020782.137230@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>...
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman (he
mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below). So
kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him. Try to temporarily remove the killfile of him until he
gets killed by sheer theoretical reasoning. [snip]
Still no comment on my post I see.
You expect people to plough through your references to find the point you
are trying to make??
Ken Seto
Note I have found a free image of the N2 bonding orbital, see below.
How are the following two experiments explained??? Note that they have
measured the wavefunction itself (not just psi^2), and this comes out
as QM predicts.
Does Seto's model also predict this? If not, then a contradiction by
experiment surely counts as a debunking??? Or do experimental results
count for nothing around here? ;)
Orbitals have been measured. Take a look at
"Direct observation of d-orbital holes and Cu-Cu bonding in Cu2O",
J. M. Zuo, M. Kim, M. O'Keeffe & J. C. H. Spence
Nature, volume 401, pp 49-52, September 1999.
The first paragraph is free at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v401/n6748/a
bs/401049a0_fs.html
main experimental image at
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif
where he overlays the data with a box to show where the crystal is.
See also
"Tomographic imaging of molecular orbitals"
J. ITATANI, J. LEVESQUE, D. ZEIDLER, HIROMICHI NIIKURA H. PÉPIN, J. C.
KIEFFER3, P. B. CORKUM & D. M. VILLENEUVE
Nature volume 432, pp 867 - 871, 16 December 2004
where the authors image the molecular N2 bonding orbital. The abstract
is at
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7019/a
bs/nature03183_fs.html
and main figure can be found half way down at
http://cibernautes.com/didaclopez/944/2670/
Figure caption I think approximately translates as
"One of the images obtained by the group of Villeneuve, which shows
the molecular orbital around the exterior of molecular N2, which
includes an amplitude region that encompasses both atoms and which is
unique. The images obtained coincide with the theoretical models of
the molecular orbital of diatomic nitrogen."
In other words, experiments have been made and not only do orbitals
exist, their wavefunctions look just as QM says they do.
best,
BR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
19 Feb 2005 12:04:17 PM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:<SgrRd.46678$i42.35098@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
[snip]
Still no comment on my post I see.
You expect people to plough through your references to find the point you
are trying to make??
Ken Seto
[snip]
Really quick then:
4d orbital measurement
http://cbed.mse.uiuc.edu/images/cu2o.gif
N2 bonding orbital measurement (figure half way down at)
http://cibernautes.com/didaclopez/944/2670/
Does your model reproduce or disagree with these measurements?
BR
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
18 Feb 2005 05:04:48 AM |
|
|
A.S. wrote:
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman
Agrees with whom?
(he mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below).
Well, that's the obvious difference between my posts to him
and his posts to me: I use far less insults and far more actual
arguments, instead of his handwavings.
So kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him.
No need to answer handwavings and insults.
Learn some physics yourself, then you'll see at once what nonsense
he spouts.
[snip rant]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
19 Feb 2005 09:44:26 AM |
|
|
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cv4i4g$h78$5@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
A.S. wrote:
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman
Agrees with whom?
(he mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below).
Well, that's the obvious difference between my posts to him
and his posts to me: I use far less insults and far more actual
arguments, instead of his handwavings.
Wrong You have no actual arguements all you did were hand-waving.
So kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him.
No need to answer handwavings and insults.
Learn some physics yourself, then you'll see at once what nonsense
he spouts.
You go learn some real physics. For starter you need to learn that the same
math can have different interpretations. For example: SR and LET have the
same math but different interpretaion of this same math. Similarly Model
Mechanics have different interpretaions for the QFT math.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A.S." |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
17 Feb 2005 10:09:08 PM |
|
|
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman (he
mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below). So
kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him. Try to temporarily remove the killfile of him until he
gets killed by sheer theoretical reasoning. The following is
the reply of Ken Seto to you.
kenseto wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
message
news:cusgft$4j$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
As already asked elsewhere: "clockwise" as seen from which end of
the
E-string?
Already responded in the thread "Is Ken Seto a genius or mad Man". With
the
exception of the electron neutrino all the S-Particles are in the same
state
of Chirality motion (left handed or right handed cork screw motion)
along
the E-String(s) to which they are confined. Therefore viewing this from
a
observable particle (such as an electron or a positron) point of view
the
S-Particle of another observable particle is in a state of clockwise or
counterclockwise orbiting motion around an E-String..
Similarly, the direction of the orbit of the electron is the same
as that of the down-quark . Now let us examine the forces that
these particles are exerting on each other. The stacked upquarks
exert an attractive force on the down-quark and the electron, and
the down-quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the
particles.
Sigh.....when S-Particles are moving in the same direction in the
E-Matrix
the force is attractive and if the S-Particles are moving in the
opposite
direction in the E-Matrix the force between them is repulsive.
This is all described in detail;s in the following link:
Notice that Seto explains nowhere why such forces should exist, and
how they are transmitted through the empty space between the
particles.
He only gives a vague analogy to magnetic forces somewhere.
Look up the following paper how the different forces of nature are
arises
from the concept of absolute motion in the E-Matrix.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
At ground state, the attractive and the repulsive forces acting
on
the electron are in equilibrium and thus, it is allowed to orbit
at this energy state.
Wrong. If the two forces where in equilibrium, no net force would
be acting on the electron, and hence there could not be a circular
orbit.
You are wrong. The S-Particle will maintain its state of absolute
orbiting
motion because the E-Strings are repulsive to each oither and the
S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings. These are the postulates of
Model Mechanics.
Apparently, Seto has never realized that a centripetal force
is required for circular orbits. Like many cranks, he already fails
in simple classical mechanics.
You are stupid. The unique properties of the E-String and the
S-Particle
enables an S-Particle to maintain its state of absolute motion in the
E-Matrix.
There is only room for one more electron at
the ground state orbit. The reason is that the electrons exert a
repulsive force on each other and therefore, they must maintain a
proper distance from each other:
So what? Nothing quantitative here. So how does he know that this
"proper distance" which is required is so large that only one more
electron fits into the ground state "orbit"?
When the electrons are at the opposite side of the nucles the repulsive
force between them is not sufficient to overcome the attractive force
exert
on them by the nucleus.
lculate this diameter using
his model.
This orbiting scheme, by the way,
does not violate Pauli's exclusion principle that two electrons
cannot have the same quanturn state.
Well, in Seto's model, something like "quantum states" does not
even
exist - so why does he feel the need to address the Pauli
principle?
Wrong.....quantum states is given a different interpretation in my
model.
direction. In quantum
mechanical terms, they have the opposite spins.
Notice that no evidence is presented anywhere that spin has
anything
to do with the direction of the orbitting of the S-particles. E.g.
the Stern-Gerlach experiment is nowhere explained (AFAIK).
It is noteworthy that inside the ground state orbit the electron
will feel a repulsive force, while outside the ground state orbit
the electron will feel an attractive force.
Complete utter hogwash.
Hand waving is not an argument.
bit, there is an attractive force on it.
Otherwise, there couldn't be an orbit! Again, Seto fails to
understand
centripetal forces.
You are an idiot....the electron is able to maintain its ground state
orbit
because of the attractive electromgnetic force exert on it by the
stacked up
quarks and the repulsive electromagnetic force exert on it by the down
quark
radict that here.
Also, what does he suggest here exactly? That there is one single
orbital radius for which there is a repulsive force, and for all
other
radii, there is an attractive force? Shouldn't there be a
continuous
transition from one case to the other?
No... the up quarks exerts an attractive force on the electron and the
down
quark exerts a repulsive force on the electron.
These unique
properties enable the electron to absorb and emit energy in
discrete packets. The following diagram will help us to
visualize
how energy and radiation are being absorbed and emitted by a
hydrogen atom.
The above diagram explains why an atom produces sharp spectrum.
The step by step process is as follows. Previously, I have
illustrated that at the ground state orbit there is no net force
exerted on the electron by the quarks in the nucleus.
And I have explained why that is hogwash, and shows that Seto does
not
even understand classical mechanics.
Your failure to understand the forces exerted by the E-Strings on the
S-Particle is not a debunking of my model.
However,
when an electron is exposed to a quantum of energy, it will
absorb that specific energy immediately.
No matter how big that quantum is?
Different quantums will result in a different increased from the ground
state orbit.
This will elevate it into a higher orbit.
Notice that Setoa larger quantum of has not explained why a higher
orbit
corresponds
to higher energy.
Sigh...higher orbit will mean that the electron will feel a higher
attractive force from stacked up quarks and less repulsive force from
the
down quark. When the electron drop back to the ground state orbit it
will
release a larger quantum of energy.
At this higher orbit, the electron will feel
a net attractive force from the nucleus. This net attractive
force will cause the electron to lose energy gradually as it
spirals inward toward the ground state orbit.
But electrons do not lose energy gradually. Excited atoms give off
energy only in discrete packages (photons), not continuously.
This is what causes the orbit shift (as shown in the diagram) and this
is
also known as the lamb's shift. When the electron drop back to the
ground
state orbit it will give out a discrete quantum of energy.
As the electron
orbits behind the nucleus, it is cut off from the energy source
completely.
"behind"??? As seen from where?
as seen from the source.
And what energy source?
The wave or distortion in the E-Strings.
This causes it to lose all of its absorbed energy
Why? How?
No energy is avilable for it to maintain a higher orbit. and the
attractive
force is pulling it back to the ground state orbit.
Complete hogwash!
You are a complete hogwash.
and drop back to the ground state orbit immediately. The energy
emitted by this process will appear to us as discrete and lumpy,
and that is exactly what was found.
Just above he said that the electron loses energy *gradually*...
Hey idiot....That's what causes the lamb shift..
The gradual loss of energy by the electron
And here again!
Idiot.
With quantum mechanics, this
shifted orbit is interpreted as the maelstrom of activities of
the virtual particles that buzz around the electron.
He confuses the Lamb shift with the fine structure constant.
Notice that he has not presented one single number! Whereas
standard
QM can calculate the hydrogen spectrum to an accuracy of at least 6
significant digits!
So what??? Model Mechanics provides the proper mechanism for the QFT
math.
The shifted orbit of the electron was discovered experimentally
by
Willis Lamb in 1947 and it is called the Lamb's shift (or the
fine st ructure of the hydrogen atom).
No, the Lamb shift is *not* the same thing as the fine structure.
I agree. I goofed.
And notice that Seto has not presented even the tiniest piece of
evidence that his model can actually explain the Lamb shift. He
simply
asserted that it is due to "a shifted orbit", and apparently thinks
that
this assertion is an explanation.
The lamb's shift is a natural outcome of the interactions the electron
with
the nucleus in Model mechanics.
Willis Lamb was awarded the Nobel Prize for this finding.
It was shown previously that the nucleus of an atom is formed by
the stacked interactions of protons and neutrons.
Asserted, not shown.
Hey idiot it is shown.
Seto shares this misconception with Porat and many other cranks:
that
asserting something means that this has been actually shown to be
true...
you are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians.
Therefore,
looking at a nucleus sideways, it will appear to be cylindrical,
instead of the normal concept that it is spherical.
Seto is free to explain the measured quadropole moments of nuclei.
The electrons
of an atom would orbit around the protons in the nucleus. The
ground state orbit of a proton is able to accommodate two
electrons. The reason is that the repulsive force between the
electrons is preventing any more electrons to come into this
orbit.
No calculation which would show that the repulsive force has a
magnitude
which would allow exactly two electrons, not less and not more.
Simply
asserted.
The QFT math can be used. The field is a distoretion in the E-Matrix.
The
interaction of virtual particles is the reaction of the orbiting
S-Particle
reacting to the distortion in the E-Stirngs to which the orbiting
S-Particle
is confined.
Since the ground state orbit of a hydrogen atom has only
one electron, therefore it is actively seeking another electron
to complete this orbit.
How does he get from "there is room for an additional electron" to
"the atom is actively seeking for an additional electron"? A
completely
unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
No huge jump. a hydrogen will actively seek another electron to
compltely
filling the ground state orbit. This activity is know as sharing of
electron
with another atom.
This is what gives the hydrogen atom the
chemical reactivity.
According to his logic, in a hydrogen molecule, with two hydrogen
atoms,
there should be room for four electrons. Why has this never been
observed?
This is your stupid logic not mine.
(BTW, a hydrogen atom with two electrons, H^-, is indeed possible.
Apparently Seto is unware of that, since he did not mention this.
Again a bonus point to him if he can calculate the binding energy
of that state correctly.)
Also, this is what gives the hydrogen atom
the ability to share an electron with another atom.
How does he get from "there is room for two electrons in the
hydrogen
ground state" to "a hydrogen atom can share an electron with
another
atom"? Again, a completely unwarranted, huge jump in logic.
Sigh....the hydrogen is sharing an electron in another atom. That is
what
hydorgen bonding is all about.
This sharing
of an electron is known as hydrogen bonding.
Vaguely right.
Hydrogen bonding is
unquestionably the most important chemical process of life
because it gives rise to all the complex molecules of life.
Utter nonsense again. The most important chemical binding for life
is the binding between carbon atoms.
Carbon bonding also involves sharing of an electron to complete the
shelf of
each carbon atom.
The rules governing the orbits of the electrons in a heavy atom
are
much more complex than that for hydrogen because the repulsive
forces among all the electrons must also be considered.
Again, he got something right here. Congratulations.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \dlzc\ N: dlzc1 D:cox" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
17 Feb 2005 10:19:24 PM |
|
|
Dear A.S.:
"A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message
news:1108699748.958288.10400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman (he
mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below). So
kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him. Try to temporarily remove the killfile of him until he
gets killed by sheer theoretical reasoning. The following is
the reply of Ken Seto to you.
Ken Seto will not be silenced by reason. Many have tried. He has too much
invested in his "production" to permit change. Consequently, any attempts
to feed Ken Seto's ego with any strokes *at all*, only serve to bring his
Touretts syndrome on full force.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
18 Feb 2005 01:03:16 PM |
|
|
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:X0eRd.69931$Yu.64660@fed1read01...
Dear A.S.:
"A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message
news:1108699748.958288.10400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman (he
mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below). So
kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him. Try to temporarily remove the killfile of him until he
gets killed by sheer theoretical reasoning. The following is
the reply of Ken Seto to you.
Ken Seto will not be silenced by reason. Many have tried.
Your reasoning is as follows: assume that the Standard Model and GR/SR
interpretations of nature is correct and anything that disagrees with these
interpretations are wrong. In other words, your reasoning is religion not
scientific.
He has too much
invested in his "production" to permit change. Consequently, any attempts
to feed Ken Seto's ego with any strokes *at all*, only serve to bring his
Touretts syndrome on full force.
Your are wrong I change my theory all the time. For example: In my book. I
described a new theory of relatvity called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT).
Later I discovered DRT is also incomplete so I reformulate and came up with
an Inproved Relativity Theory (IRT).
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A.S." |
|
| Title: Re: Debunking Ken Seto in progress.... |
17 Feb 2005 11:20:16 PM |
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear A.S.:
"A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message
news:1108699748.958288.10400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bjorn,
Ken Seto agrees he is the genius and you may be the madman (he
mentions you are an idiot 5 times in the reply below). So
kindly response to his latest reply debunking your debunking
of him. Try to temporarily remove the killfile of him until he
gets killed by sheer theoretical reasoning. The following is
the reply of Ken Seto to you.
Ken Seto will not be silenced by reason. Many have tried. He has
too much
invested in his "production" to permit change. Consequently, any
attempts
to feed Ken Seto's ego with any strokes *at all*, only serve to bring
his
Touretts syndrome on full force.
David A. Smith
I wonder how many books he has sold. Is Ken simply into money making
business or is he moved by truth. If he believes it because he believes
it. Maybe he doesn't understand enough to know where he got his model
wrong. So enlightening him by sheer penetrating reasoning may awaken
his mind and free him from bondage. You may reason he has invested
in his books. How many books have you really sold Ken? Because if you
can get a more superior idea by learning from all the mistakes, you
can remodel your theory and publish new books on the improvement. I
hope Ken is unbias or open minded enough to consider anything. We must
also remember that we are still in dark middle ages in physics due to
the incompatibility of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
While many scientists are working on unification like M-theory. Some
are working on re-structuring the foundation of physics because if
the foundation is not built on solid ground. There will never be
any unification because you don't add orange and apples and get
gold bar. Another thing is I don't think many of you totally
understand Seto model in the first place. And so they can't debunk
him properly where he can see the error. It is true that some people
have to believe in their own lies because they have invested too
much. But Ken Seto is more open minded than some nuts. So many would
be familiar with his model. Here are some very important parts he
didn't share in his site that is why people such as Bjoern may not
understand completely his model (and unable to cmopletely debunk
him because of insufficient knowledge of his fallacy.. it's like
you can only completely cure a psycho patient by understanding his
psychological profile or makeup). Let's start with Seto version
of his Big Bang where it all started:
Ken Seto wrote in his book:
S-Particle Ball
In a self starting universe scenario, the S-Particle ball that
started our universe was formed by the accumulation of
neighboring S-Particles through time. With the creation scenario,
the S-Particle ball was 'put in place' by God. In both cases, the
S-Particles in the ball collided with each other and gave rise to
an immensely high temperature that initiated the Big Bang
explosion.
S-Particles
S-Particle is the only truly fundamental particle in the
universe. The orbiting motions of of the S-Particles around
specific E-Strings give rise to all the observable particles of
the universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particies
and S-Particle systems in the E-Matrix give to all the forces of
nature.
Orbiting Motions
Orbiting Motions are the motions that were acquired by the
S-Particles during the Big Bang explosion. The different orbiting
motions of the S-Particles give rise to the different detectable
particles (electron, quarks and electron neutrino). These are the
basic building blocks of all the stable visible matters in the
universe. The properties of a detectable particle -- charge,
magnetic moment, mass and spin -- are not intrinsic. In other
words, these properties are not residing within the detectable
particl es. These properties are the results of the absolute
motion of its S-Particle in the E-Matrix. The direction of
orbiting motion gives rise to Positive and negative electric
charge. The intensity (speed) of the orbiting motion gives rise
to the degree of electric charge. The diameter of the orbiting
motion gives rise to the mass.
The Forces of Nature
Model Mechanics posits that all the forces of nature are the
results of different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the
E-Matrix. There are five forces, instead of the normal four
posited by current physics. The fifth force is the CRE force. The
CRE force between neighboring objects is repulsive. It is derived
from the confinement of objects to the dive | | | | | | |
