Experiment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arne Saknussemm said:
What do the psychologists call this...when you object to your own faults in others? Transference? I call it prejudice. I think the Beakster is just having some fun. No need to get yer knickers in a twist, old buddy.
Click to expand...

You appear to be showing your continued prejudiced against AID Arne.
This is a science forum to gain knowledge and remove Ignorance about the Universe/spacetime we inhabit.
Beaconator is doing nothing more than attempted sabotage because he has been exposed as a crank.
 
Arne Saknussemm said:
What do the psychologists call this...when you object to your own faults in others? Transference? I call it prejudice. I think the Beakster is just having some fun. No need to get yer knickers in a twist, old buddy.
Click to expand...

I wrote something about transference once! If I could only remember what that was...

I think prejudice applies to a group of people and I have no real "group" I don't believe...

Unfortunately it is people like you who make some of this "fun" we are all supposed to be having.
 
I have developed this relatively simple experiment in order to combine our empirical data, and our logical theory, with our tangible technology.

By simple means I intend to show that time was created in equal parts and equal orbits. The first line on the periodic table has only hydrogen and helium. It should have an equal amount of mass in the universe from lithium to neon..

Or H+he=li+be+ B+ C+ N + O +F +Ne in terms of energy and abundance.

Each new orbital should mark an equal amount of energy to the previous orbital in terms of abundance for those chemicals.
 
Beaconator said:
I have developed this relatively simple experiment in order to combine our empirical data, and our logical theory, with our tangible technology.
Click to expand...
OK

By simple means I intend to show that time was created in equal parts and equal orbits.
Click to expand...
That does not even make any sense. The sentence appears to be little more than random words thrown together.

The first line on the periodic table has only hydrogen and helium. It should have an equal amount of mass in the universe from lithium to neon..
Click to expand...
Well unfortunately it does not even come close. H and He make up about 98% of the atoms in the universe. As a mass fraction that is about 100X of the next 8 elements.

Each new orbital should mark an equal amount of energy to the previous orbital in terms of abundance for those chemicals.
Click to expand...
Well go ahead and do it and let's see the results.

Here is some help to get you started.:

Atomic orbitals

Atomic orbital energy level

Abundance of elements in the universe
 
If the abundance scale were done by energy instead of by mole each period would be pretty close to equal
 
This thread makes baby kittens sad...

sad_kitten1.jpg
 
Beaconator said:
If the abundance scale were done by energy instead of by mole each period would be pretty close to equal
Click to expand...
Really? Could you show that?

What do you mean by "energy"? What energy specifically are you talking about?
 
origin said:
Really? Could you show that?

What do you mean by "energy"? What energy specifically are you talking about?
Click to expand...


If we were to include the mass of elements in a black hole into the percentages of abundance the periods would be equal in terms of mass energy equivalence. Black holes contain about half the mass in the universe and more heavy elements frozen in time than many stars combine. The percentages of the abundance scale are possibly skewed because they were done by mole not by mass. How were these percentages even derived?
 
Beaconator said:
If we were to include the mass of elements in a black hole into the percentages of abundance the periods would be equal in terms of mass energy equivalence.
Click to expand...
That is nothing but gibberish.
What energy are you talking about mass-energy equivilance?

Black holes contain about half the mass in the universe
Click to expand...
Nope, not even remotely close.

and more heavy elements frozen in time than many stars combine.
Click to expand...
More gibberish. Do you think you are making sense or are you just using words you don't understand and hoping it makes sense?

The percentages of the abundance scale are possibly skewed because they were done by mole not by mass
Click to expand...
.
A mole is a number of atoms. mass is mass. using either measure the your original claim is bogus.
 
When I was ten, my father bought me a hasbro chemistry set. One of the first things I did was dump everything into the same test tube. Same as Beaconator. Same thing happened. A mess I had to clean up.
 
This thread is being closed since it serves no actual purpose (other than to insult intelligence.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top