Atomic Hydrogen and Nuclear Fission

Interesting. Have you come up with a model for solo electrons? Like in a TV picture tube.

Once you have two protons stuck together at the base, how do you get a third to join in? Or a thirtieth?

LB

Hi Larry

Takes 24 hours for my replies.

I have no logical model for an electron. Perhaps it is a miniature "ball of lightning" and can be bumped lose by the proton.

In regard to nuclei, the model works up to helium but no further. For helium, two protons would attach, tip to tip, with the ends of the coupled protons. We would have two bases with repulsive effect and no more tips to bond to. The problem is that I cannot differentiate between nuclear bonding and chemical bonding.

Back to the drawing board. I will propose a further alteration in the right, circular cone to a pyramid with the same, concave, hemispherical base. Now one can have a side to side bonding of protons with the strength being "halfway" between the tip to tip bonding and base to base bonding. In all cases, I argue against any attractive force. I think all bondings would be "safe harbor" positions in regard to the repulsives forces of gravitons and elysons. With pyramids, one can build nuclei with base to base positions, tip to tip positions, side to side positions, and finally open base electron repulsive positions. There are enough permutations to even include isotopes. It is interesting that the number of bonds that an element can have bears no relationship to the total number of its electrons. This is why I think chemical bonds form where the electrons (or proton bases) are not.

Another case for choosing a pyramid is as follows:

Hope you have a sense of humor. For entirely independent reasons, I am convinced that the three pyramids at Giza, Eqypt were a nuclear complex. New Age Pyramidalogists INSIST that the pyramid geometry was a secret message by the ancients to those of us in the future. I think their choice of the geometry of pyramids was a statement of their belief that the proton was a pyramid. Hopefully, your carpet was soft when you collapsed and rolled around on it. The hernia is your problem.

Gregg Wilson

Hello Gregg,

Despite the fact that it is just the beginning of an idea, it is still interesting. Have you played around with any other shapes?

If you have more, I'm listening.

LB

Larry,

I think pyramids are the best start; they maintain symmetry in two dimensions and a distinct assymetry in the third dimension. In all seriousness, I would make pyramids (three sided or four sided?), and proceed to assemble them and see if one could "create" the elements, including stable isotopes, from hydrogen on upward. If it progressed successfully through several elements, it might be useful. One would be counting up the # of pyramids, base to base unions, side to side unions, exposed bases and exposed tips - to see if one had correct atomic weight and correct valence. The counting of protons, neutrons and active electrons would probably differ from the traditional count. I think the solar system model of the atom was an innocent mistake by Rutherford. What Bohr did was much worse. ("I have decreed that they have fixed orbits.")

Accepting gravity as an attractive force dismissed the existence of a gravitational flux. Accepting the Michelson-Morley conclusion dismissed the existence of a light carrying medium. With "two thirds" of existence dismissed, you have to be fantasy driven to explain physics --> quantum mechanics.

Gregg Wilson

Larry

The more I think about the pyramid shape, the more I like it. I, or anyone, can make pyramids out of card stock by means of a computer drafting program and a printer. The only critical factor is the slope. I am betting that it is 52 degrees (four sides). One can include a printed circle on the base to represent a concave hemisphere. Use two sided scotch tape, or whatever, to stick them together. Any nucleus will NOT have point to point connections. That would be reserved for chemical bonds. Interestly, one can have different strength chemical bonds. For instant, join two pyramids together, side to side. The two points come together. Now join them to a single pyramid, point to point, to create deuterium-hydrogen. The chemical bond will be slightly different from hydrogen-hydrogen.

I always run with something until I get a bloody nose. I've lost track of how many bloody noses I have had (very low batting average).



Gregg Wilson

[Gregg] "(... very low batting average)"

Hello Gregg,

That is <b>Sturgeon's Law</b> at work. Theodore Sturgeon is (was?) a scientist and SF author popular during my early adulthood. In an interview once he observed that 80% of all SF is crap. The interviewer was puzzeled that an SF author would say this, 'till he elaborated by noting that 80% of everything is crap.

I don't know if this "law" is known by another name, but even so I'll always call it after him.

BTW, I think he was being generous. 90% to 95% sounds more realistic. And if you venture into the realm of politics (NOT recommended, but also not avoidable) it rises to about 125%.

Regards,
LB