There's a striking similarity between nature's arrangement (numeric structuring) of the chemical
elements and "Number's" own inherent structuring. The Table Of Powers pairing the two and the five, the
four and the seven, and the six and the nine as obvious kindred relationships begs that the remaining
quantities three and eight likewise share in some unique arrangement identifying them as siblings (such as if
the sequence for the three had been 181818). In this respect the perfection of the table thus far breaks down
and fails to deliver on the implied perfection in the previous illustrated quantities.

Study a table of chemical elements arranged to show the distribution of the electrons in each unique
atom. The K shell or orbit, after hydrogen, is complete with two electrons for every atom. The next shell L fills
1 through 8, with all atoms following filling at 8. Shell M follows the order of the previous shell filling 1
through 8, but then continues with a couple more 8s then a 9, 10, 11, 13, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and then the rest all
hold 18 electrons in their M shell. The "perfect" order of the beginning has certainly broken down. The next
shell, N, starts off in spurts and then stabilizes 1 through 8, mirroring the beginning but then deteriorates in
orderliness as it works it's way up to completion at 32 electrons. Shell O mirrors the previous shell's less than
perfect march to completion at 32 electrons, and so on.

The point that is being made here is that just because the powers of three are not the same or (obviously)
related to the powers of eight, it doesn't make bogus the whole of the previous data. At least no more so than
does the table of elements lack of perfection render bogus the richness of the data exposed or the ideal pattern
toward which it can only approach.

Copyright P. Kasprzycki 1997