Atomic nuclear structure
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Atomic nuclear structure
The atomic nucleus is not simply a plum pudding of neutrons and protons. The structure of the atomic nucleus determines the shapes of the extra-nuclear electron shells, as well as the difference between stable and unstable isotopes of the elements. This information has been published for years, but few take notice. This knowledge seems very exciting to me . . .
Statistical Analysis of Same-Atomic-Weight Isotopes
The Moon Model of the Nucleus
Advances in Developing the Moon Nuclear Model
The Suppressed Electrodynamics of Ampère-Gauss-Weber
How about you?
Statistical Analysis of Same-Atomic-Weight Isotopes
The Moon Model of the Nucleus
Advances in Developing the Moon Nuclear Model
The Suppressed Electrodynamics of Ampère-Gauss-Weber
How about you?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
Coincidentally, I just posted a link to the first page in another thread. I concur, GM. This is hard science that's being ignored.
In that vein, I'm off to check the other links
In that vein, I'm off to check the other links
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
Tayga, what thread would that be?tayga wrote:Coincidentally, I just posted a link to the first page in another thread. I concur, GM. This is hard science that's being ignored.
In that vein, I'm off to check the other links
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- tayga
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
This one: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15023Goldminer wrote:Tayga, what thread would that be?tayga wrote:Coincidentally, I just posted a link to the first page in another thread. I concur, GM. This is hard science that's being ignored.
In that vein, I'm off to check the other links
tayga
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman
Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
So, you see: There is no such thing as the "strong force." All this stuff is ancient history, ignored by those who obfuscate. I have posted these links in other threads here at Tbolt Forum. Damned if I can find them now . . . and they were skimmed over without a ripple.quoting Laurence Hecht "When the consideration of mass is introduced into his [Wilhelm Weber's] velocity-dependent electrical force equation, the result is that there is a critical length below which the force of repulsion between two electrical particles is changed to attraction, and vice versa! . . . It gets more interesting. Weber has already dared, in the 1870 paper, to conceive the notion we know today as the proton-electron mass ratio, which leads him to wonder as to the possible motions of the different configurations of particle pairs. It turns out that, according to his relativistic electrical law (one which was never considered in the accepted, modern formulations of atomic theory), it is possible to develop an orbital system for the case of a lighter electrical particle of one sign, orbiting a heavier particle of the opposite sign! It is also possible for two similar particles of the same sign to develop a closed system of oscillations along the straight line connecting them."
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Solar
- Posts: 1372
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
Yep, and because of your previous efforts I had long ago found several of Weber's papers and good work keeping them afloat by A. K. T. Assis:Goldminer wrote: So, you see: There is no such thing as the "strong force." All this stuff is ancient history, ignored by those who obfuscate. I have posted these links in other threads here at Tbolt Forum. Damned if I can find them now . . . and they were skimmed over without a ripple.
Weber Electrodynamics (Papers)
And, it was your efforts, as far back as '09 that I consider instrumental in bringing the work of Pierre-Marie Robitaille to these boards that I recall. In definite ways methinks that "ripple" became a 'wave' with Robitaille delivering the pertinent info at the 2014 conference and Stephen Crothers also has written on that work. Here also is a newer thread on The "unqantum" effect presented to this forum previously by yourself?
Your ripples were not lost here as far as I'm concerned.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
-
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
~
Goldminer,
I had bookmarked after reading, this ref you kindly provided here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 06&p=43556
I always find your postings interesting and worthwhile, just usually a bit over my head ….
∞
Goldminer,
I had bookmarked after reading, this ref you kindly provided here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 06&p=43556
I always find your postings interesting and worthwhile, just usually a bit over my head ….
∞
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
- Location: Singapore
- Contact:
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
Thanks for the links; a great surprise for me. The first is by Carl Johnson, very interesting.Goldminer wrote:The atomic nucleus is not simply a plum pudding of neutrons and protons. The structure of the atomic nucleus determines the shapes of the extra-nuclear electron shells, as well as the difference between stable and unstable isotopes of the elements. This information has been published for years, but few take notice. This knowledge seems very exciting to me . . .
Statistical Analysis of Same-Atomic-Weight Isotopes
The Moon Model of the Nucleus
Advances in Developing the Moon Nuclear Model
The Suppressed Electrodynamics of Ampère-Gauss-Weber
How about you?
Neutrinos May Not Exist, Carl Johnson:
http://mb-soft.com/public4/neutrino.html
All in all, Carl Johnson's arguments may mean the end of the standard model; no strong and weak forces, neutrino, etc. He said the only reason the neutrino was postulated by Wolfgang Pauli was to preserved the Law of Conservation of "Amplitude" of Angular Momentum, nothing else - laughable to the extreme!
I think Carl Johnson probably was right in his understanding of addition of vectors - the equilateral triangle can make 1/2 -> 1/2 + 1/2 vectorially!neutron → proton + electron + neutrino
He then explained that SPIN was conserved:
1/2 → 1/2 + 1/2 + -1/2
I think you still miss one very important link,
Common Sense Science:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/index.html
Contribution from Charles W, Lucas, David L. Bergman and others. I had this link some time back; but when I found "Bible science" mentioned, I gave it a pass.
But for some reason, I read a little now; the real physics part may be something, especially that of David L. Bergman (no Christian science); definitely worth looking into. Seems to have an explanation of inertia from first principles, all electromagnetic just by postulating structure of fundamental particles instead of point particles; no General Relativity! no Standard Model, etc.Charles W, Lucas, Jr.
1) History of the Earth According to Science and the Bible – includes creation, flood, separation of the continents, genealogies, radiometric age, etc.
2) Mechanism By Which God Created from Genesis 1 and Science
Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:19 am
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
The statistical analysis of atomic isotopes is something I have long kept backed-up that will become part of a philosophy of science based examination of atomic models, along with the examination of many other aspects of physical theory. Weber, Mach, Ampere, and others all made highly important analyses of mechanics and electrodynamics that have been side-lined to some degree, in favour of reinterpretations that do not lend themselves as well to real observation. Andre Assis has done a good job of pointing this out in his texts and papers.Goldminer wrote:The atomic nucleus is not simply a plum pudding of neutrons and protons. The structure of the atomic nucleus determines the shapes of the extra-nuclear electron shells, as well as the difference between stable and unstable isotopes of the elements. This information has been published for years, but few take notice. This knowledge seems very exciting to me . . .
Statistical Analysis of Same-Atomic-Weight Isotopes
The Moon Model of the Nucleus
Advances in Developing the Moon Nuclear Model
The Suppressed Electrodynamics of Ampère-Gauss-Weber
It is certainly time to re-examine the history of both Mechanics and Electrodynamics, and the consequent theories that have arisen from popular interpretation. Critical analysis of current standard theories cannot be done properly without a broad understanding of the historical aspects being taken into consideration.
The history of the development of mechanics, is quite indispensable to a full comprehension of the science in its present condition . . .
— Ernst Mach
On a more philosophical note:
The atomic theory plays a part in physics similar to that of certain auxiliary concepts in mathematics; it is a mathematical model for facilitating the mental reproduction of facts . . . This is the case, too, with all hypothesis formed for the explanation of new phenomena. Our conceptions of electricity fit in at once with the electrical phenomena, and take almost spontaneously the familiar course, the moment we note that things take place as if attracting and repelling fluids moved on the surface of the conductors. But these mental expedients have nothing whatever to do with the phenomenon itself.
— The Science of Mechanics Ernst Mach
- Vincent Wee-Foo
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:22 am
- Contact:
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
I read a few of the articles and papers, and found them very exciting too.Goldminer wrote:The atomic nucleus is not simply a plum pudding of neutrons and protons. The structure of the atomic nucleus determines the shapes of the extra-nuclear electron shells, as well as the difference between stable and unstable isotopes of the elements. This information has been published for years, but few take notice. This knowledge seems very exciting to me . . .
Statistical Analysis of Same-Atomic-Weight Isotopes
The Moon Model of the Nucleus
Advances in Developing the Moon Nuclear Model
The Suppressed Electrodynamics of Ampère-Gauss-Weber
How about you?
How could mainstream missed these?
- Chai Wallah
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:11 am
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
someone once mused to me that Protons and Neutrons are the same , except that one if flipped inside out - so to speak
i.e the Proton has a less positive inner part , and vice versa for the neutron.
otherwise they would not hold together at the Nucleus.
& since the forces are not the same when they are not in the Nucleus, they are not( and can not be) measured with equality elsewhere..
Also , under certain conditions , they can be induced to flip over and Swap places within the Nucleus ( cold fusion/LENR ?)
Seemed to ring a note of truth for me.
but seeing as how I am not to clever in these matters , I have filed it away somewhere in the top drawer for the moment..
i.e the Proton has a less positive inner part , and vice versa for the neutron.
otherwise they would not hold together at the Nucleus.
& since the forces are not the same when they are not in the Nucleus, they are not( and can not be) measured with equality elsewhere..
Also , under certain conditions , they can be induced to flip over and Swap places within the Nucleus ( cold fusion/LENR ?)
Seemed to ring a note of truth for me.
but seeing as how I am not to clever in these matters , I have filed it away somewhere in the top drawer for the moment..
Checking for spelling mistakes is the last refuge of the Skeptic.
-
- Posts: 1024
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
If you were to read the above posted articles, you would discover that long ago, the team of Ampère-Gauss-Weber observed that there is no need for the strong force. At very close proximity like charged particles become attractive rather than repelling. Elements exist that have nuclei containing multiple protons and no neutrons. I suggest you read the links.Chai Wallah wrote:someone once mused to me that Protons and Neutrons are the same , except that one if flipped inside out - so to speak
i.e the Proton has a less positive inner part , and vice versa for the neutron.
otherwise they would not hold together at the Nucleus.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
- Chai Wallah
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:11 am
Re: Atomic nuclear structure
I will give them my best effort, thank you.Goldminer wrote:If you were to read the above posted articles, you would discover that long ago, the team of Ampère-Gauss-Weber observed that there is no need for the strong force. At very close proximity like charged particles become attractive rather than repelling. Elements exist that have nuclei containing multiple protons and no neutrons. I suggest you read the links.
Checking for spelling mistakes is the last refuge of the Skeptic.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests