Electron ls Orbital Binding Energy Equation

Nov1-03, 11:06 PM

I have produced the most accurate electron binding energy equation known to-date. This equation predicts the ls orbital electron binding energies from lithium to uranium to within an accuracy of +/- 5%. The averaged error for all the ls orbital binding energies from lithium to uranium is only -.06%.

http://www.tshankha.com/electron_binding_energies.htm

The equation is based upon the spin structure of spacetime, the fine structure constant, and the kinetic energy of the electron. The equation is not finished as there is an unknown term added. But the equation is more accurate and instructive than any other electron binding energy equation, applied across a wide spectrum of atoms, known to-date.

Perhaps some brilliant mind out there will figure out the missing term and make a major physics breakthrough?

Dave

**turin** · Nov3-03, 02:53 PM

I'm a little confused why you think the electron has that kinetic energy and why it has a strong interaction. When I got to the strong interaction of the electron, I decided to stop reading, because I figured I was already confused enough.

Nov3-03, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by turin
I'm a little confused why you think the electron has that kinetic energy and why it has a strong interaction. When I got to the strong interaction of the electron, I decided to stop reading, because I figured I was already confused enough.

I looked at the page and you're right, it was confusing. These pages represent my working notes, not a finished paper. I've gone through the charge page and updated it so that it would be much clearer. I'll go through the rest of the pages and clean them up to.

See if this is any easier to follow.

http://www.tshankha.com/charge.htm

Dave

**chroot** · Nov3-03, 05:59 PM

This nonsense does not belong here. It belongs in the Theory Development forum.

- Warren

**turin** · Nov4-03, 12:19 PM

Just what exactly do you mean by "aether?"

Nov4-03, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by chroot
This nonsense does not belong here. It belongs in the Theory Development forum.

- Warren

What nonsense? Do you think an equation to predict the electron binding energies of 1s orbitals is nonsense? I presented an equation. The equation works. What is nonsense about that?

Dave

Nov4-03, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by turin
Just what exactly do you mean by "aether?"

Aether is the non-physical counterpart to the physical universe. It is the source of Coulomb's constant, permeability constant, permittivity constant, the speed of light, the conductance constant, and the gravitational constant. The Aether is also the source of particle spin. The Aether also contributes to the fine structures of the particles.

It is because of angular momentum passing though the Aether that electromagnetic charge is produced.

Aether is spacetime, "vacuum", "quantum foam", and "free space". The Aether is quantifiable and it has a clear mathematical relationship to the physical world.

Dave

**chroot** · Nov4-03, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by volantis
What nonsense?

How about this:

Strong nuclear charge is the product of angular momentum of a particle and conductance of the Aether.

or this:

Strong nuclear charge, (also "strong charge", or electromagnetic charge)

Need I go on? Moderators, this crap does not belong in this forum.

- Warren

**turin** · Nov4-03, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by volantis
(1)
Aether is the non-physical counterpart to the physical universe.

(2)
It is the source of Coulomb's constant, permeability constant, permittivity constant, the speed of light, the conductance constant, and the gravitational constant. The Aether is also the source of particle spin. The Aether also contributes to the fine structures of the particles.

(3)
It is because of angular momentum passing though the Aether that electromagnetic charge is produced.

(4)
Aether is spacetime, "vacuum", "quantum foam", and "free space". The Aether is quantifiable and it has a clear mathematical relationship to the physical world.

(1) This is meaningless to me. If it's nonphysical, then why even mention it in the context of physics?

(2) Again, meaningless to me. Do you mean that Aether is springing forth constants and such like a fountain? Is Aether your name for a supreme being?

(3) For the third time, meaningless to me. Is the Aether a portal that can be passed through? From what and into what?

(4) Well, these things mean different (and in some contexts contradictory) things. I don't know anything about "quantum foam," but your use of quotation marks makes me uneasy when you are trying to define a term. Why don't you use one of these other terms when appropriate, instead of nonsensically lumping ideas together inconsistently. Are you trying to suggest the unification of these ideas? If so, which ones are you adjusting in what ways to make this a happy union? Are you suggesting the existence of "The Aether" that was dismasted by general relativity? If so, then never mind about anything that I've posted.

Nov4-03, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by chroot
How about this:

Strong nuclear charge is the product of angular momentum of a particle and conductance of the Aether.

or this:

Strong nuclear charge, (also "strong charge", or electromagnetic charge)

Need I go on? Moderators, this crap does not belong in this forum.

- Warren

The nonsense is that I have presented a verifiable equation that comes closer to predicting the electron binding energies for ALL atomic isotopes in the history of physics and you haven't provided anything but a personal opinion. I do hope the moderators intervene and ask you to participate on a scientific level of discussion or refrain from posting altogether.

If my equations and physics can describe the physical Universe better than the nonsense you worship that is far inferior, then it is you who should be removed. Physics is not a popularity contest, it is based on results. Unless you can add some verifiable results to this discussion, I believe it is you who is out of line.

Dave

**chroot** · Nov4-03, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by volantis
Unless you can add some verifiable results to this discussion, I believe it is you who is out of line.

QED.

- Warren

**turin** · Nov4-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by volantis
Physics is not a popularity contest, it is based on results.

I don't see any evidence of a popularity contest. Do you think anyone in the real world cares what you are posting on this forum? Furthermore, physics is based on meaningful results, not pushing numbers around so that your nonsensical equations fit some known set of data. Has your equation predicted anything that was not already known? Does it even describe something mathematically that was not before described?

**futz** · Nov4-03, 07:15 PM

Show me valid (and reproducable) experimental results proving the existance of your aether, and then maybe your derivations will be more valid. Until then, your equation is just a bunch of math based on assumptions that have little physical meaning.