Introducing the Key Ring Atom - a new atomic model

[Dannel Roberts]

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.

 

My English is not the best that I will admit. That's why we need editors. I have some ideas. I am trying to share them. I need to post more information at my web site. I need to show the Key ring Molecules and the Key ring compounds. This should provide you with more "Entertainment" if nothing else.

 

If a person has an idea and does nothing with it, is what ticks me off.

 

Let's say there is a .000000001 percent chance I am right. What if somebody does figure out how to convert personal gravity to electricty? I am planting the idea that it COULD be possible.

[Dannel Roberts]

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

 

I like people who state their mind. There is no doubt where you stand. I get a little huffy at times to. When someone tells you what you believe in is wrong, that is hard to take. I think the proper thing is to disagree in an agreeable manner.

 

I value your opinion. It will be about a week before I post the key ring molecules. I would like for you to tell me what you think about them as well.

 

Just remember I use the word "THEORY". These are just ideas I would like to discuss. If they get shot down, they get shot down.

[jasonchild]

...(ommited for sanity)...

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 are what come out. 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 that there are hundreds or thousands of particle inside each atom!

 

You are saying, if I get your point, that there is no amplitude when it comes to the energy of particles, such as photons. From what I read you mean to state that there are descrete particles for each level of amplitude (UV light, visible light, etc).

 

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.

 

The Hesienberg uncertinty principal tends to yield the idea of the electron it existing in what some call an electron cloud (put in terms a 10yr old can understand here ). This, in turn, provides something "similar" (though not as far fetched) to your whole "ring" deal, but more logical in structure.

 

One aspect of your theory I have noticed is that it throws quantum mechanics (at least core principals of it) out the window. You are explaining things in a very static way, ignoring topics such as particle spin, point particle-particle wave relation (interference patterns, phase cancelation, etc) and other such items. It is almost like you are reinventing the the bicycle wheel without spokes...

 

Let's say there is a .000000001 percent chance I am right. What if somebody does figure out how to convert personal gravity to electricty? I am planting the idea that it COULD be possible.

 

...and I am planting the idea that by feeding large doses of LSD to ants we can enslave them and use thier numbers to aid in the colonization of the sun. Thats right, because we all know that trippin ants are immune to extreme heat and cold...and are quite capable of space travel. :)

[Harzburgite]

by feeding large doses of LSD to ants we can enslave them and use thier numbers to aid in the colonization of the sun.

Well, this is just silly. :) The only way this will work is by landing on the sun at night. :D

[jasonchild]

Well, this is just silly. :) The only way this will work is by landing on the sun at night. :(

Bah, you underestimate the powers of ants on a serious acid trip! Go, my flame resistant minions, go! :D

[thomas_e_lafferty]

Bah, you underestimate the powers of ants on a serious acid trip! Go, my flame resistant minions, go! :eek2:

Bah, you underestimate the powers of ants on a serious acid trip! Go, my flame resistant minions, go! :)

 

I found the newly proposed model of the atom to be interesting and do not know enough about physics to speak with any kind of authority, pretended or otherwise. I will not, therefore, don a proverbial white lab coat and gesticulate about things concerning which I know next to nothing. Having said that, I have a few questions, the first of which is directed to the presumed author of the theory.

 

What led you to reject quantum physics? (I am assuming that you do.) Do you have sufficient mathematical or physics background to honestly understand its postulates? Secondly, is your theory based upon empirical observations? Have you conducted any tests in an attempt to falsify your hypothesis? What are your operational assumptions? What controls are you imposing upon your experiments and what are your variables?

 

Before asking questions of those who oppose this theory, I have a few observations to make. Given that science is supposed to be the concern of RATIONAL MINDS, I am more than a little concerned with the readily apparent vitriol being spewed in the direction of the theorist. I have understood the response of the rational person to ideas which he or she opposes to be one of calm reasoning. Instead of this, I find what appears to be adhominem attacks. Rather than merely expose what you view as weaknesses in the idea, you seem bent on finding weaknesses in the man. This does not bode well for my trusting that you are objective observers of empirical phenomenon. It seems that you feel it necessary to stoop to puerile, abusive verbiage designed not to correct thinking, but to intimidate. We may do well to consider that if a fool should accidentally espouse wisdom, those who profess themselves to be wise will show themselves to be the greater fools if they reject an idea merely based upon its origin.

 

Now for my questions.

 

1. What is the empirical support for quantum mechanics?

 

2. What are its operational assumptions? Its admitted weaknesses?

 

3. What are your operational assumptions? Do you believe, for example, that the observable universe arose from and can be explained by purely naturalistic causes? If so, why? If not, why? Are you willing to admit your bias?

 

4. Since when is one's age a valid test of a theoretical proposal? Under that measurement, Newton's calculus should have been rejected since he proposed it before he was twenty.

 

5. Since when does the use of pretty words, correct grammar and proper spelling make a theory true? It has been my experience that those possessed of highly analytical, mathematically inclined minds are rarely gifted linguistically and vice versa. It is the rare individual, indeed, that possesses both gifts. However, rhetoric is actually subversive in nature and should not be considered to add anything to an idea. If anything, an idea should stand or fall on its own merits, not because a self-appointed grammar-nazi has vilified it. Truly, Adolph Hitler was an accomplished rhetorician and sold the whole German nation an atrocious theory. Should he have been listened to because of his pretty words?

 

6. If your treatment of this gentleman is any indication of the level of "scientific" debate which occurs on this site, why should I take ANY OF YOU seriously?

[CraigD]

…6. If your treatment of this gentleman is any indication of the level of "scientific" debate which occurs on this site, why should I take ANY OF YOU seriously?

Because not all members of scienceforums treated Mr. Roberts discourteously, or rejected his ideas out-of-hand.

 

After considerable study of his ideas (their lack of falsifiable predictions makes me hesitant to term them hypotheses) - which, I might add, were presented in highly readable and graphically beautiful format - my personal conclusion is that Roberts's work is not scientifically valuable, not worth further study.

 

I don’t consider it by any means without value, because I find it one of the best examples of a fascinating kind of science-focused writing that has become fairly common, due, I suspect, to the ease with which self-publishing can be done using the internet, vs. journal or print publishing. The common theme among this specific type of writing is an appeal to simplicity – that is, a tendency to reject established science because it is so difficult to learn. A characteristic of this writing is that the author is not well read or trained in conventional science, but rather than viewing this as a disadvantage, considers it an advantage. Such writing often describes people with much conventional scientific training as “blinded” by that training.

 

What I have read of Roberts’s work does not do this, but rather makes an appeal to commons sense, and graphical data over numeric.

[Boerseun]

Jeez, people - I thought this thread died the quiet, lonely death it deserved.

 

Dannel - if you still frequent Hypography, have you got anything to add still? I propose we close this sucker.

 

Then again - this is the 'Strange Claims' Forum, so maybe Dannel should have a final go at convincing us that the Universe consists out of donuts.

 

Should be good news for the Universe Police.

[CraigD]

... I propose we close this sucker. ...

If you moderatorly judgment tells you to close the thread, by all means, do.

 

My last post had no reference to “the key ring atom model” – it was a rush to defend the honor of the members of scienceforms, :lol: and a comment on the social phenomena of “appeal to simplicity/common sense” science writing, more appropriate to the “social science” or “philosophy of science” forums.” I’m guilty of the laziness of tacking a new thought onto an old thread, and timidity to tread in the soft-sci domains of Sociology and Philosophy.

[nkt]

I found the newly proposed model of the atom to be interesting and do not know enough about physics to speak with any kind of authority, pretended or otherwise. I will not, therefore, don a proverbial white lab coat and gesticulate about things concerning which I know next to nothing. Having said that, I have a few questions, the first of which is directed to the presumed author of the theory.

Thomas, what you say there is, in fact, exactly what the OP says. He doesn't like the current explanation, and so, from a similar background as yourself, he has created a theory which does not address many of the everyday features of the atom that we see.

 

However, you are obviously thinking quite scientifically, with your well presented questions to both sides. Do you have any formal training, or are you just a sharp thinker? Either way, welcome to Hypography!

 

6. If your treatment of this gentleman is any indication of the level of "scientific" debate which occurs on this site, why should I take ANY OF YOU seriously?

What Craig_D said. The fact that, shall we say 'somewhat unusual' ideas get aired in here, without being flamed to hell, and the author banned, is proof that we are freindly and open, as well as (perhaps overly) tolerant of weird stuff.

[Dannel Roberts]

I am sorry I have been away. I am a partner in a Software Developement Company. We have a very hot item right not that is taking up all my time(it is paying the bills). I have to devote all my concentration to it and will probably be doing so until the end of Novemeber. Right now I don't have the time to post several items a week. I will be back.

 

What led you to reject quantum physics? (I am assuming that you do.)

The lack of geometrical models was the first thing led me to the rejection. It is extremely difficult to build a working model using the "Standard Model". Illustrations are the most common way to show the concept. Valence shells are a nighmare with the "Standard Model". The electromagnetic force has to have multiple levels of strength or holding power.

 

The second thing that led me to the rejection of quantum mechanics was that no one has ever "seen the details of an atom"(quote from an encyclopedia). What is inside the atom is still a theory. Once I went down the path that "modern physics" could be wrong is when I started developing the key ring atom.

 

do not know enough about physics to speak with any kind of authority, pretended or otherwise

You are on the same page as everyone concerning what is inside the atom.

 

Do you have sufficient mathematical or physics background to honestly understand its postulates?

I don't have the mathematical background or ability. The atom is not a mathematical issue, it's gemetrical issue. I have studied physics in high school and college(they were easy A's). Geometry was also an easy A.

 

This is the ability I do have. I can study something and build a complete working geometrical model in my head. For example, I can take a V8 engine start it and run it. I can cut a cross section of it and watch both sides run at the same time. I can do the cross section at any angle. I can zoom in and watch any part move mechanically. The engine can run with push rods, single overhead cam or double overhead cams I can also do this with 2 cycle engines or rotary engines. My son asked me what RPM I can run the engine at. I usually run at around 120 rpm but can go up to 240 rpm.

 

If I build a model of a carbon dioxide molecule in my head with the stardard model, it won't work. The quantum forces will not hold the oxygen atoms to the carbon atom. There are huge problems with the standard model. I can see this. The geometry doesn't work for me.

 

I guess I need to build some models and show what I see is wrong with the stardard model in the future.

 

I am coming from this at a gemetrical angle not a mathematical one.

 

Secondly, is your theory based upon empirical observations?

 

Yes, I have looked at several pictures of atoms produced from scanning tunneling microscopes and electron microscopes. The pictures of these atoms produces a fuzy, cloudy shell. The donut shape of the key ring atom can work in all the pictures I have seen.

 

 

Have you conducted any tests in an attempt to falsify your hypothesis? What are your operational assumptions? What controls are you imposing upon your experiments and what are your variables?

 

This is my experimentation with atoms, elements and molecules using the key ring atom. First I get it to work in my head. Second, I get it to work on paper. Third, I build working models. If the geometry is correct, you can look at the atom, element, or molecule and tell how it will act chemically.

 

Since when does the use of pretty words, correct grammar and proper spelling make a theory true?

 

I have always struggled in english and grammer. For this I have to apologize. I have my wife look over what I write before I post it. This helps a lot.

 

you seem bent on finding weaknesses in the man

This is normal. Go research the history of science. The fools and the ones who made the breakthroughs where treated this way.

 

Thank you for the kindest post I have to date.

[Erasmus00]

The second thing that led me to the rejection of quantum mechanics was that no one has ever "seen the details of an atom"(quote from an encyclopedia). What is inside the atom is still a theory. Once I went down the path that "modern physics" could be wrong is when I started developing the key ring atom.

 

How old was your encyclopedia? While many of the fine details of the nucleus haven't been directly observed, certainly x-ray microscopy can get down to atomic length scales, and high energy electron microscopy and AFM can resolve even further.

 

I don't have the mathematical background or ability. The atom is not a mathematical issue, it's gemetrical issue.

 

Calculus (mathematics) is just shorthand for geometry to allow it to be manipulated more easily.

 

In general, you talk of being able to picture geometry in your head, with an engine as a specific example. I want to point out that the engine is something you see in day to day life. It operates on our length scales and at about "normal" velocities. It exists at a scale our intuition has evolved to deal with. Why should anyone expect their everyday intution extends to the lengths very much smaller or very much larger then what we see in day to day living?

 

 

Yes, I have looked at several pictures of atoms produced from scanning tunneling microscopes and electron microscopes. The pictures of these atoms produces a fuzy, cloudy shell. The donut shape of the key ring atom can work in all the pictures I have seen.

 

The model you find fault with not only predicts the shapes you see in atomic pictures, but also allows the construction of the microscopes used to observe them.

-Will

[nkt]

The lack of geometrical models was the first thing led me to the rejection. It is extremely difficult to build a working model using the "Standard Model". Illustrations are the most common way to show the concept.

I challenge you to build a good working model of a binary star system, or, indeed, a flame or an engine. You can draw it, but modelling it is a different thing.

Valence shells are a nighmare with the "Standard Model". The electromagnetic force has to have multiple levels of strength or holding power.

German grammar is a nightmare, but you can't just say it is wrong and re-write it. The nature of the shells, and the structure that they produce, reflect almost perfectly the macroscopic elements. Indeed, it was by noting the nature of the elements that the elemental table was drawn up, gaps and all, but there were many experiments done to prove that the theory was correct.

The second thing that led me to the rejection of quantum mechanics was that no one has ever "seen the details of an atom"(quote from an encyclopedia). What is inside the atom is still a theory. Once I went down the path that "modern physics" could be wrong is when I started developing the key ring atom.

As pointed out above, how old was the book? Electrons are moved individually, as are atoms themselves, with Atomic Force/Tunnelling Electron microscopes. Atom smashers see inside atoms all the time. X-ray diffraction does the same. Computer models do too. Of course, the book is correct in one way - no-one has or can see inside an atom, as the human eye cannot see such tiny wavelengths, and the electrons shield the core anyway. But we know well what is inside, in the same way children work out what the present is before Christmas morning.

 

This is the ability I do have. I can study something and build a complete working geometrical model in my head. For example, I can take a V8 engine start it and run it. I can cut a cross section of it and watch both sides run at the same time. I can do the cross section at any angle. I can zoom in and watch any part move mechanically. The engine can run with push rods, single overhead cam or double overhead cams I can also do this with 2 cycle engines or rotary engines. My son asked me what RPM I can run the engine at. I usually run at around 120 rpm but can go up to 240 rpm.

I can too. But that's got nothing to do with this. I can also visualise the subsonic, transsonic and supersonic flow over a (simple) shape, but I can't do it well enough to replace a wind tunnel or empirical computer model. I can imagine the collision of stars in great detail, and probe the secrets of the big bang. It's a wonderful thing. But it is of no use when you fail to understand the basic principles behind the process. I understand and can vaguely picture the mass of photons and atoms dancing to produce a population inversion in a laser, but that's no use without a deep understanding of the rate equations, a knowledge of the losses in the system, etc. And when it comes to things you can barely follow, with acres of print and Dirac functions and so on, all you have is a vague model you build in your head, which is probably wrong.

If I build a model of a carbon dioxide molecule in my head with the stardard model, it won't work. The quantum forces will not hold the oxygen atoms to the carbon atom. There are huge problems with the standard model. I can see this. The geometry doesn't work for me.

Because your model is wrong. Mine works fine, as the electrons form two double bonds as they jump from the first oxygen atom to the carbon, giving CO(2+) and then snagging a second oxygen, and getting to be CO2, with 8 electrons in the outer shell of the carbon, and 8 in both oxygens. The holding is done by the movement of those charges. Simple. In my head. And vastly simpler than reality. No idea of the holding forces, the bond angles, etc. from my model. I add them in because I know them, but the model doesn't provide those answers. Nor does it explain how the body gets rid of the CO2, and avoids making CO, which it has real trouble with. (How does that happen, anyone?)

I guess I need to build some models and show what I see is wrong with the stardard model in the future.

 

I am coming from this at a gemetrical angle not a mathematical one.

You are fitting the model to a subset of the data. It might be a useful simplification, or not. Treating atoms as simple blocks works for most of life, too, but not when you are talking quantum mechanics...

[Boerseun]

Dannel - if your main reason for coming up with your theory is that you can't 'picture' current theory in your mind, then, at least, you're in good company.

 

Albert Einstein once said only two people in the world understands relativity, and he hasn't met the other guy.

 

Apart from that - you might wanna check the calibration on your car's rev counter. If you run it from 120 to 240 max, there's a serious problem.

 

I propose you forget about trying to visualise the atom-scale universe, anything smaller than the Planck length is by definition beyond our ability to see; and start reading up on the mathematics behind it. Pure math is the only way we can ever get close to understanding the microcosmos.

 

Oh yes - and check out your rev counter...