Introducing the Key Ring Atom - a new atomic model

[Dannel Roberts]

The first idea in my theory (Particle Mechanics - the Theory of Energy States) was that gravity was a particle and it pushes. The second idea was that all energy has a particle behind it. I gave the particle a generic name of a tadtron. The tadtron has a head and a long tail. The shape of its head and tail determines its "State". The tadtron can change from electricity to light or from light to electricity or any other "Energy State". The third place that this particle idea led me to was the atom. Now I am going to describe a new atom that is composed of tadtrons.

 

I am a believer in total conservation. There's the same amount of energy or the same number of particles today as there was yesterday. I am also a believer in PIPO(particle in particle out). Reverse engineering is a very good way to figure out how something works. To figure out the construction of an atom I reverse engineered. I have only seen picture and films of a hydrogen bomb being exploded. What comes out? From what is reported, visible light, X-Rays, radiation, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio waves, several other electro magnetic energies and a shock wave. A lot of energy comes out. I believe all those energies are particles. That would mean all those particles are in the

atom. The math would be, there are hundreds or thousands of particle inside each atom!

 

This article will be dealing only with a hydrogen atom. Under the standard model, a hydrogen atom has a proton at it's center. The proton has an electron that orbits around the proton. Something called weak force holds the electron in orbit. The electron orbits very fast and produces a round shell effect around the proton. There's a lot of empty space between the orbit of the electron and the proton. I don't believe in this model because it is not composed of a large number of particles.

 

That was the next endeavor, build a molecule that is composed of nothing but particles. The first thing was to decide how a particle could move and stay in one place. Light moves in a straight line and goes from point A to point B. The particles must move differently than light. If a dog chases it's tail it will move in a circle and stay in one place. That was the next conclusion, have the tadtrons "chasing their tails". Imagine a tadpole with a long tail going in a circle. What's the next step? Something has to hold all the circling tadtrons together.

 

I thought about this for quite a while. There were several configurations that went nowhere. The answer was was in my pocket. It was something many of us use everyday. It was something very stable. Reach in your pocket and pull out your key ring. At the center is the key ring itself. The key ring holds all your keys. The keys all have a circle that the keyring slides through. This was my big break through! Could the atom be configured like a keyring that holds your keys together?

 

The answer is, yes it can. I bought some pipe cleaners, shaped them into circles and configured a key ring atom. The particle at the center I name a proton ring. This is a tadtron in the Proton Ring state. All the rest of particles traveling in circles I named Electron Rings. These are tadtrons in the Electron Ring state. The proton ring is the key ring and the electron rings are the keys.

 

The big question is how many electron rings are there. I don't know. There may be hundred or thousands. The next thing to do was to make an illustration. I have an illustration at my web site

http://www.particlemechanics.com/key_ring_atom.htm. If you look at the

illustration you can see the proton ring at the center. All the circles inside the proton ring are the electron rings. We only used 60 electron rings in the illustration. If you use more you can't see the center of the atom. Strangely enough, this is the same problem in physics, we can't see the center.

 

The shape of the atom is a doughnut. The hole at the center solves my problem of how gravity can go through the atom. I believe all the electron rings circle in the same direction. In the illustration, imagine all the electron rings circling inward. This inward motion is the mechanism by which gravity works. It's almost like a vortex pulling particles in. Gravity particles go to this "hole" and form long lines of particles behind them. It's not much different than if this were the end of a vacuum cleaner hose or the drain at the

bottom of a pool. Air goes in the vacuum and water goes down the drain. Gravity

goes to the atom.

 

This atom is not a lot different than the standard model. It's shaped a little different but has the same characteristics. There still is a lot of space. The proton ring is a logical unit just like the proton. The keyring atom has one big difference, it is pure energy or pure particles. When the proton ring is broken all the electron rings will change their states to what comes out of a hydrogen bomb. The particles in the atom will be the particles that come out.

 

If you are like me, the next logical step is the keyring molecules. Combining the key ring atoms is the real fun. Geometry will determine chemical characteristics. I will post this soon.

 

The area above the proton ring that gravity goes into is going to be called the atomic vortex. Each atom has an atomic vortex for each of the number of its mass. Carbon 12 would have 12 vortexs. Each vortex has at least 1 stream of gravity going to it. As in the case of the sun, the number of gravity streams going to it is the number of atoms or the total of its mass.

 

Have fun with this guys. I am trying to contribute something to science. You are some of the first to hear them. I appreciate anyone who at least considers and or comments on my ideas.

 

For any new readers, I have 2 other threads at this forum. The first one is "Gravity is a particle that pushes". The second is "Could gravity power the sun?". There has been some very intesting comments. You might read them if you haven't already. They may have moved to strange claims, if they are not under physics and mathematics.

[TeleMad]

First off, THIS SHOULD BE MOVED TO THE STRANGE CLAIMS FORUM. It's not physics: it's a strange claim.

 

Dannel Roberts: To figure out the construction of an atom I reverse engineered. I have only seen picture and films of a hydrogen bomb being exploded. What comes out? From what is reported, visible light, X-Rays, radiation, infrared light, ultraviolet light, radio waves, several other electro magnetic energies and a shock wave. A lot of energy comes out. I believe all those energies are particles. That would mean all those particles are in the atom. The math would be, there are hundreds or thousands of particle inside each atom!

 

The math works out just fine sticking to E=mc^2 and the standard model of physics. No need for any new "theory" or for a new "model" of the atom involving fictional tail-chasing "tadtrons" on atomic sized keychains. By the way, have you ever heard of Ockham's razor?

 

Dannel Roberts: This article will be dealing only with a hydrogen atom. Under the standard model, a hydrogen atom has a proton at it's center. The proton has an electron that orbits around the proton. Something called weak force holds the electron in orbit.

 

Nope. You need to learn physics before you "overturn" its theories and models.

 

I - and anyone else with even a rudimentary understanding of physics - could tear apart the rest of your mumbo jumbo, but why bother? You're already a gonner. Contrary to your implicit assertion, there's no need for a new model of the atom using silly tail-chasing "tadtrons" and keychains, and you've already shown your ignorance of standard physics - the weak force doesn't hold electrons in orbit around a nucleus.

 

So once again...THIS BELONGS IN THE STRANGE CLAIMS FORUM - it is NOT physics: it is a STRANGE CLAIM dressed in the language of physics.

[C1ay]

They may have moved to strange claims, if they are not under physics and mathematics.

As is this one. If you can provide some rigorous proof to support this model and you can disprove existing models I will move it back. This will of course require a body of work suitable for the Nobel Prize In Physics.

[UncleAl]

The first idea in my theory (Particle Mechanics - the Theory of Energy States) was that gravity was a particle and it pushes.

Dead On Arrival ****************.

The second idea was that all energy has a particle behind it. I gave the particle a generic name of a tadtron.

*********. It's called a "photon."

Now I am going to describe a new atom that is composed of tadtrons.

Empirical nuclear and particle physics. ******************. When are you going to crack a textbook instead of a pot?

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

http://www.motionmountain.net

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physics-faq.txt

I am a believer in total conservation. There's the same amount of energy or the same number of particles today as there was yesterday.

I turn on a lightbulb and photons come streaming out without limit. ****************.

The shape of the atom is a doughnut. The hole at the center solves my problem of how gravity can go through the atom.

Case in point.

I am trying to contribute something to science. You are some of the first to hear them. I appreciate anyone who at least considers and or comments on my ideas.

Remove him until he puts on long pants.

 

*VOICE OF GAHD* Be cautious poster, this post alone has violated the sacred FAQ 7 times. Please re-read it, give 10 hail Tormod's. explain the contents of those links, and all in all put a little more maturity into your writings.

[Dannel Roberts]

you've already shown your ignorance of standard physics - the weak force doesn't hold electrons in orbit around a nucleus.

 

Yes, I have shown my ignorance of the standard model. It is the electromagnetic force that holds the electron in "Orbit". It is the + and - charges holding the electron. When discussing others work I need to be more accurate. I was wrong! I appologize. The only way not to make any mistakes is not do anything.

 

Did you look at my model at my web site? The proton ring accomplishes both electromagnetic force and strong force. Did you understand the atomic Vortex?

[Dannel Roberts]

As is this one. If you can provide some rigorous proof to support this model and you can disprove existing models I will move it back.

 

I am not going to spend any time "Disproving existing models". I don't like to run other peoples work down so mine looks better.

 

My problem is the illustrations. They were made for a book. I am getting some of them converted to web format. I will be posting these at my website. My plans are to show key ring molecules of helium, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. I will then show how they bond chemically. I then plan to show hot and cold with these atoms. The geometry of the atoms along with their temperature can show why molecules are solids, liquids, and gases. The superfluidity of helium is simple to see. Why carbon dioxide won't turn to a liquid is also easy to see. I have constructed a large scale model of helium and carbon dioxide. I hope to post pictures of them. Surface tension of water can also explained with this atomic model.

 

I will post these as I get them under strange claims. If you think they are worthy of being posted under physics then you can move them.

 

Did you look at my model of the key ring atom?

[C1ay]

Did you look at my model of the key ring atom?

Yes but I'm laughing to hard to try and make any serious comments right now....

[Tormod]

As in the case of the sun, the number of gravity streams going to it is the number of atoms or the total of its mass.

 

So many words, so little sense.

 

Have you managed to explain where your gravity comes from in the first place yet?

 

Statements like "The number of atoms or the total of its mass" are amusing but sadly bewildering. The total mass of the sun is not measured in number of atoms but in kilos.

 

According to http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html the mass of the sun is 1.989e30 kg.

 

The number of atoms would be endlessly larger than that. And for EACH of those atoms you need to explain where the source of the gravity stream is, and why it chooses each particular particle.

 

I'd also like to ask - would there exist scenarios when an atom does NOT receive a gravity stream?

[Harzburgite]

Dannel, there is probably no way of saying this gently - "You are wasting your time; you are wasting our time."

I am not going to spend any time "Disproving existing models". I don't like to run other peoples work down so mine looks better.

You clearly fail utterly to understand how science works. Critical analysis of the work of others (and of your own ideas) is a cornerstone of science. It is not a beauty pagaent to determine which idea looks better, but a rigorous, exhausting search for the truth, building each small fact on the work of previous researchers.

When that work is found to be flawed it is dismantled and a replacement constructed. Very occasionally a gifted mind sees a major flaw and conceives an original way of correcting it. Such a mind has an intimate thorough knowledge of current theory, knowing its strengths and weaknesss in detail.

You do not appear to understand current theory.

You do not appear to understand scientific method.

You do not appear to have identified any flaws in current theory that demand a new one..

You have not offered any evidence in support of your ideas.

 

If you are younger than seventeen I commend your imagination and urge you to obtain an education.

If you are older than seventeen I suggest you grow up.

 

Regards

H

[Harzburgite]

I just visited your websites and am almost speechless. Let me dissect a single example on http://www.tadtron.com/bohrs_atom.shtml

 

"The most recent version of an atom, which has over time had MANY versions, was created by a scientist named Bohr. In his model, an atom has an equal number of electrons and protons and a normally equal number of neutrons. Protons are found in the nucleus and are positively charge particles. Neutrons have a neutral charge and are also found in the nucleus. Electrons are found rotating the nucleus, creating something much like a solar system, and have a negative charge. This arrangement, while seemingly beautiful, has a major flaw. The simple truth is that positive and negative charges ATTRACT each other. This small fact presents a problem in Bohrs atom model. If positive and negative charges attract, what causes this structure to stay together? Perhaps there may be a better model to explain this."

1. The Bohr model is not the most recent atomic model.

2. Atoms do not normally have the same number of protons as neutrons. They often have the same number, but not often enough to say 'normally'.

3. Neutrons do not have a neutral charge, they are neutral. There is no such thing as a neutral charge.

4. Use of outmoded cliches is annoying [creating something much like a solar system]

5. "If positive and negative charges attract, what causes this structure to stay together? Perhaps there may be a better model to explain this" Hmm. Might you have heard of say quantum mechanics.

 

If your book contains the same sloppy writing, disregard for facts and cavalier approach to real science, then I find myself wondering if sometimes freedom of speech can be carried too far.

H (451)

[Dannel Roberts]

Have you managed to explain where your gravity comes from in the first place yet??

 

There are those who have had theories of a vast amount of energy in all places, even in vacuums. That is not my idea. I think the latest is the "Dark Energies". It is energies we can't see. I can't prove these exist or don't exist. I can do this. I can shine a light on a black surface. It is light when it comes out. I think there is a particle behind the light. When the light hits the black surface it changes. It is no longer light. I think this particle goes into the "Dark Energies". The particle is now available to go in an atom as gravity or to follow in a gravity stream. There are many "states" energy that can go through this recycle process.

 

Statements like "The number of atoms or the total of its mass" are amusing but sadly bewildering. The total mass of the sun is not measured in number of atoms but in kilos.

 

Yes, it is to vast to get an accurate count. Each kilo has a certain number of "Protons" and "neutrons". That's the number I am refering to.

 

And for EACH of those atoms you need to explain where the source of the gravity stream is, and why it chooses each particular particle.

 

The atom is serveral thousand times bigger than the gravity particle. The inward motion of the electron rings produces what I called an "Atomic Vortex". This vortex assists in the process. The "Dark Energies" may have a "Pressure". The atomic vortex could be a high and low pressure scenerio. Sperm cells find eggs by random chance. The egg is many times bigger than the sperm. A vast number of particles in the universe are all available to be a part of the random chance process.

 

I'd also like to ask - would there exist scenarios when an atom does NOT receive a gravity stream?

 

Very good question. You should be able to "Block" the gravity stream. Blocking a gravity stream is something I called a "Gravity Cloak". When you do that you may change the "Momentum" laws. That's a huge subject. Under my theory all atom have gravity streams going to them. You for example have gravity streams coming to you in all directions. That's your "personal gravity". When you move they have to "Adjust". When you move forward the streams in front of you put pressure on the front of you and push you backwards. When you slow down, the streams behind you put pressure on your back and push you forward. Once you obtain a certain speed, your "Personal Gravity" is now neutral and pushes equally in all directions. Get in a car and press the gas, feel the push in front. Hit the breaks and feel the push in the back. A gravity cloak could be the answer to how we can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

Thanks for your positive comments and questions. If I am wasting my time then it is my time to waste. The gravity cloak may go no where in physics but it could be very intesting to all the science fiction writers.

[C1ay]

One's things for sure, you've got a dandy imagination. I think you could be the next Spielberg or something. Have you ever thought of writing science fiction?

[nkt]

I do wish we could flame some of these people *properly*. :xx:

 

There does come a point when being nice is a far greater evil than flaming.

[Tormod]

Thanks for your positive comments and questions.

 

Sorry but I did not provide any positive comments... :xx:

[Harzburgite]

Sorry but I did not provide any positive comments... :xx:

In comparison with mine, perhaps. :)

[Boerseun]

Dude. Dannel. Buddy, old pal.

 

You're wrong, okay?

 

Get over it.

 

There's no such thing as doughnut or keyring atoms, and no such thing as gravity 'pushing'. There's no shortcoming in current theory requiring your model to fix it. At the very least, your model is more complicated than current theory, pissing my old buddy mr. Occam off completely.

 

So - do yourself a favour, and besides giving up on your bullshit theory, go and study some English. Not only does your spelling suck in general, but your writing is totally juvenile. You'll never convince anybody older than twelve that you're actually serious with the **** you're flinging there.

 

In all sincerity,

 

Boerseun.

[Boerseun]

...I apologize for the above post. That was rude and uncalled for.