The Physical Atomic Weight Scale:
A Unit 1.0 Scale Based on Fluorine 19
Introduction
The following paragraph caught my eye when researching information about the atom and the elements:
"Symbols, names, and chemical atomic weights are those adopted by the Commission on Atomic Weights of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry at Zurich, in July, 1955. It should be noted that this chemical atomic weight scale is not identical to the physical atomic weight scale. In the physical atomic weight scale the mass of O16 is taken as the standard and is assigned the mass of exactly 16.00000 units; in the chemical scale the atomic weight of the natural isotopic mixture of oxygen (containing small amounts of O17 and O18) is assigned the value of exactly 16.00000. Conversion to the physical scale can be made by dividing by 1.000275. Several suggestions for unifying the two scales have been made. A scale based on fluorine 19 (fluorine has no other known natural isotopes) appears to be the most attractive. No such changeover, however, is likely to occur soon owing to the large amount of data in textbooks, reference books, etc., that would require revision." [DAVIS, Helen Miles, The Chemical Elements, Ballantine Books, New York, 1959, page 191. Emphasis mine.]
The previous statement appears to be another example whereby scientists recognize a better way to do things, but opt out because the correction may be too laborious or, counter popular trends. In my mind, the cognitive process is negatively affected by the lack of correction.
There are other examples that I have come across in the science literature where scientists recognize the need to redo something, but decide not to because the correction would require countering traditional knowledge.
For example, in the chromosomal human karyotype, it was recognized that the sequential size of the chromosomes is out of order. Yet, no corrections have been made so as not to counter popular beliefs. I produced a new chromosomal human karyotype order based on the sequential size of the chromosomes [www.earthmatrix.com/karyotype.html]. Distinct patterns resulted from the new change in format. But, geneticists evidently prefer to remain with the error in their classification.
I produced The Schemata of the Elements, a distinct periodic table based on the sequential order of the atomic numbers of the elements. When I showed the schemata to a few chemists, they agreed that the sequential ordering in the schematic format made more sense. But they declared that it was impossible to adopt the schemata since all of the tests in the schools, colleges and universities are geared to the standard periodic table now in use.
There are other examples. But the previously cited examples suffice to illustrate how knowledge is not produced due to practices that inhibit corrections within certain sciences.
In this essay, I carry out a small exercise. I take the atomic weights offered in Helen Miles Davis' book and divide them by the number 19, pertaining to the atomic weight of fluorine. It is an elementary exercise to see what kind of numerical values arise from this procedure. I employ the values of atomic weights offered by Helen Miles Davis in 1959 in order to get an idea of what kind of numerical values would have been contemplated 55 years ago. The implications in this analysis are that possibly those numerical values would have suggested other paths of analysis in physics and chemistry. [Other Unit 1.0 scales for the elements have been presented on my web-site, www.earthmatrix.com.]
Obviously, the suggestions coming from the derived values in this manner were not produced back then. In other words, this knowledge was not produced 55 years ago, the insight is being produced now, in 2014. "The Physical Atomic Weight Scale: A Scale Based on Fluorine 19"
The following list presents the atomic weight of each of the elements divided by the number 19 as the atomic weight of 9-fluorine. In the column of "Numerical Values" selected observations present suggestive relationships of those corresponding values.
Element Atomic weight Divided by 19 Numerical Values and Observations
1-H 1.0080 /19 = .0530526316 2-He 4.003 .2106842105 3-Li 6.940 .3652631579 4-Be 9.013 .4743684211 5-B 10.82 .5694736842 6-C .6321052632 7-N 14.008 .7372631579 8-O 16.0 .8421052632 9-Fl 19.0 1.0 Unit 10-Ne 20.183 1.062263158 11-Na 22.997 1.210368421 12-Mg 24.32 1.28 [constant binary] 13-Al 26.98 1.42 14-Si 28.09 1.478421053 15-P 30.975 1.630263158 16-S 32.066 1.687684211 17-Cl 35.457 1.866157895 [Mantissa related to square root of 3: .8660254038] 18-Ar 39.944 2.102315789 19-K 39.100 2.057894737 20-Ca 40.08 2.109473684 21-Sc 44.96 2.366315789 [Absolute temperature Scale: 1.366099213] 22-Ti 47.90 2.521052632 23-V 50.95 2.681578947 24-Ca 52.01 2.737368421 25-Mn 54.93 2.891052632 26-Fe 55.85 2.939473684 27-Co 58.94 3.102105263 28-Ni 58.69 3.088947368 29-Cu 63.54 3.344210526 1.672105263 [≈ Proton mass] 30-Zn 65.38 3.441052632 31-Ga 69.72 3.669473684 [Absolute temperature Scale: 0.366099213] 36-Ge 72.6 3.821052632 33-As 74.91 3.942631579 34-Se 78.96 4.155789474 35-Br 79.916 4.20105263 36-Kr 83.8 4.410526316 37-Rb 85.48 4.498947368 38-Sr 87.631 4.612105263 39-Y 88.92 4.68 [9.36, 18.72…] 40-Zr 91.22 4.801052632 41-Nb 92.91 4.89 [9.78, 19.56… Planck energy 1.9561] 42-Mo 95.95 5.05 43-Tc [99] 5.210526316 44-Ru 101.7 5.352631579 45-Rh 102.91 5.416315789 46-Pd 106.7 5.615789474 47-Ag 107.880 5.677894737 48-Cd 112.41 5.916315789 49-In 114.76 6.04 50-Sn 118.7 6.247368421 51-Sb 121.76 6.408421053 52-Te 127.61 6.716315789 53-I 126.9 6.679473684 [G = 6.6742] 54-Xe 131.3 6.910526316 55-Cs 132.91 6.957368421 56-Ba 137.36 7.229473684 57-La 138.92 7.311578947 58-Ce 140.13 7.375263158 59-Pr 140.94 7.416842105 60-Nd 144.27 7.593157895 61-Pm [145] 7.631578947 62-Sm 150.43 7.917368421 63-Eu 152.0 8 64-Gd 156.9 8.257894737 65-Tb 159.2 8.378947368 66-Dy 162.46 8.550526316 67-He 164.94 8.681052632 68-Er 167.2 8.8 69-Tm 169.4 8.915789474 70-Yb 173.04 9.107368421 71-Lu 174.99 9.21 72-Hf 178.6 9.4 73-Ta 180.88 9.52 74-W 183.94 9.68 75-Re 186.31 9.805789474 76-Os 190.2 10.01052632 77-Ir 193.1 10.16315789 78-Pt 195.23 10.27526316 79-Au 197.2 10.37894737 80-Hg 200.61 10.55842105 81-Tl 204.39 10.75736842 82-Pb 207.21 10.90578947 83-Bi 209.00 11 84-Po 210 11.05263158 85-At 210 11.05263158 86-Rn 222 11.68421053 87-Fr 223 11.73684211 88-Ra 226.05 11.89736842 89-Ac 227 11.94736842 90-Th 232.12 12.21684211 91-Pa 231 12.15789474 92-U 238.07 12.53 93-Np 237 12.47368421 94-Pu 242 12.73684211 95-Am 241 12.68421053 96-Cm 248 13.05263158 97-Bk 249 13.10526316 98-Cf 249 13.10526316 99-Es 254 13.36842105 100-Fm 255 13.42105263 101-Md 256 13.47368421 102-Nu 254 13.36842105 [Halves to 1.671052631]
In search of a pattern, consider the concept of whole numbers for the numerical values. These appear approximately for the following elements:
Whole number Element Pattern 0.053 1-H 1 + 8 = 9 1.0 9-Fl 9 + 10 = 19 2.0 19-K 19 + 9 = 28 3.0 28-Ni 28 + 6 = 34 4.0 34-Se 34 + 8 = 42 5.0 42-Mo 42 + 7 = 49 6.0 49-In 49 + 7 = 56 7.0 56-Ba 56 + 7 = 63 8.0 63-Eu 63 + 7 = 70 9.0 70-Yb 70 + 6 = 76 10.0 76-Os 76 + 7 = 83 11.0 83-Si 83 + 6 = 89 12.0 89-Ag 89 + 7 = 96 13.0 96-Cm
Whole numbers might appear ideally as follows, with the following aggregate pattern based mainly on plus-7 elements [octaves]:
Element Ideal Aggregate Units Real Ideal
1-H +8 .05 -.053 9-Fl +10 1.0 1.0 19-K +7 2.0 2.057894737 26-Fe +7 3.0 2.939473684 33-As +7 4.0 3.942631579 40-Zr +7 5.0 4.801052632 47-Ag +7 6.0 5.677894737 54-Xe +7 7.0 6.910526316 61-Pm +7 8.0 7.631578947 68-Er +7 9.0 8.8 75-Re +7 10.0 9.805789474 82-Pb +7 11.0 10.90578947 89-Ac +7 12.0 11.94736842 96-Cm 13.0 13.05263158
Note in the comparison of both groups of numbers and patterns, that the initial and final elements of the ideal series are the same as those of the actual series of numerical values. Variations between the groups appear within and between the two series of elements compared.
Observations
In summary, some of the derived numerical values are suggestive of other fundamental physical events and constants. Among other relationships to be noted in a later essay, the ones that are most suggestive to me here concern the similarity to the absolute temperature scale [1.3661], the proton mass [1.67262], and Planck energy [1.9561].
Element Atomic Numerical values, observations Weight
9-Fl 19.0 1.0 Unit
12-Mg 24.32 1.28 [constant binary number series]
17-Cl 35.457 1.866157895 [Mantissa related to square root of 3: .8660254038. The square root of three is related to the absolute temperature scalee.]
21-Sc 44.96 2.366315789 [Absolute temperature Scale: 1.366099213 Freezing point of water plus boiling point of water = 1.0 + 1.3661 = 2.3661]
29-Cu 63.54 3.344210526 / 2 = 1.672105263 [≈ Proton mass]
31-Ga 69.72 3.669473684 [Absolute temperature Scale: 0.366099213 Difference between freezing point of water and boiling point of water 1.3661 - 1.0 = 0.3661]
39-Y 88.92 4.48 [9.36, 18.72…]
41-Nb 92.91 4.89 [9.78, 19.56…Planck energy 1.9561]
53-I 126.9 6.679473684 [suggestive Gravitational constant = 6.6742]
63-Eu 152.0 8 [whole number fractal]
83-Bi 209.00 11 [whole number fractal]
102-Nu 254 13.36842105 [Halves to 1.671052631]
Additional essays on this theme are to follow on the Earth/matriX web-site in order to demonstrate that the relationships of numerical values are not due to happenstance.
-0-
Earth/matriX SCIENCE TODAY The Physical Atomic Weight Scale: A Unit 1.0 Scale Based on Fluorine 19 Charles William Johnson Earth/matriX Editions
©2014 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. Reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.
|