A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An Alternative To The Nuclear Atom (part 1)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th 18, 01:33 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default An Alternative To The Nuclear Atom (part 1)

INTRODUCTION.
----------
Stored here for convenience
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/q1-q6htm.html
and here as a FreeBasic compiled Qbasic program
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/q1-q6x.exe. Norton will
give it an immediate tick of approval if it's OK to run.
Otherwise, check that the file size is 181760 bytes before using.
Whatever the case, before Windows 10 deletes your downloaded file
you'll need to click 'Details'.
----------

This simple experiment and what is to follow give an excellent
insight into the workings of the atom. The active components for
the experiment are, a Na22 radioactive disc, a si3bg Geiger tube,
an event counter and a series of lead blocks ranging in length
from 5.5mm to 44mm, in 5.5mm increments. The Geiger tube detects
only hard beta and gamma rays.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/0-0-0t.html
for more component detail.

The Geiger tube and the radioactive disc were placed far enough
apart so that the 44mm long lead block could be fitted between
them.

The different length lead blocks were placed between the source
and receiver and the variations in received gamma rays were
recorded. If the photon energies from electron-positron
annihilations are common, the expected reduction in gamma rays
reaching the Geiger tube would be proportional to the increasing
lead length. But that's not the case at all. The reduction rate
is fairly rapid at the start and reduces substantially at the
end. A significant number of supposedly identical gamma rays
travel through 88mm of lead as well.

Apart from 88, each data point was derived from the average
result from 18 one hour duration tests. The curve shape may not
yet be precise but it has been clearly evident right from the
start.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/grf1.jpg

Inconsistencies in the contribution from the surrounding universe
are fairly inconsequential for all but the 88mm lead test. The
total strike rate per hour through the 44mm lead, being the
longest in that series, is 28 of which the universe contributes
around 10 strikes per hour. Both have significant error margins
which becomes insignificant over time.

Another cause for concern in this area was the shielding effect
of the lead relative to the contribution from the universe. No
obvious change was noted when the 11mm lead block position was
shifted back and forth between a close proximity to the Geiger
tube and a close proximity to the gamma ray source. The blocks
were always positioned close to the Geiger tube to minimize the
effect. It was going to be fairly inconsequential anyway.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/11mmblok.gif

Justifying the '88mm' result for the above graph.

Note: Increasing the distance between the source and receiver to
accommodate the 88mm lead block reduces the received emissions to
roughly 25% of the amount received using the spacing required for
the 44mm lead block.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/88mm.jpg

The 88mm lead remains in place throughout this test so that the
shielding effect of the lead between the receiver and gamma rays
from the universe is of no consequence. The only variant was
whether or not the source was in place (swapped after each run
(on/off)).

With this setup, gamma ray strikes from the universe are greater
than ray strikes from my source. And since 50% of the universe is
shielded by a rotating earth relative to a changing picture of
the universe, the runtime for each test was necessarily one
sidereal day.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/grf3.jpg

20.24 strikes per day per local source (average1-average2).
(average1-average2)/24*4 = 3.37 equivalent strikes per hour
for the 44mm between source and receiver comparison.

The average strike rate per hour with the lead completely removed
was 10. 10 strikes / hr. were necessarily subtracted from all
test results for the first graph prior to generating that graph.

The gamma ray energies from the Na22 source either vary
substantially or some of them are less affected by their
surroundings than others. The latter would seem to be the case.

The degree of gamma ray interaction with the surroundings depends
on the electron_positron link during the process of (presumed)
annihilation when the ray was being created. They would be
unstoppable if the interaction had been immediate (involving no
other charged particles). The maximum travel distance through the
lead varies according to how much of the recorded interaction
carried in the ray extends beyond the immediate association. The
recording will be played back exactly as it was created when any
part of the atomic charge structure in the lead interacts with
it.

(the zero origin concept)
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/zerorign.html

The stopping distance exponentially decreases from infinity for
0% accessibility to zero for 100% accessibility, which implies
a linear change rate. But it's nothing like that because the zero
point on the graph is set at infinity. The tiniest degree of
accessibility will infinitely shrink the stopping distance to a
measurable quantity. It's an exponential decay mechanism based
on zero at infinity so the change rate would be phenomenal.

----------

An Alternative To The Nuclear Atom (part 1)

An understanding of the atom is absolutely impossible while the
nuclear atom is accepted as reality. The most obvious failing is
that it can't possibly explain why liquids are virtually
incompressible.

The contacting surfaces of the atoms involved are necessarily
very rigid and the only way such rigidity can be achieved is if
the contents of the atoms are held in an extremely compressed
state, and there is direct contact between the surfaces of
whatever it is that encloses the contents. The idea that this
rigid boundary is somehow generated in the relatively gigantic
expanse of atomic space surrounding the nuclei is completely
absurd. i.e. For the solar system comparison where the nuclear
radius is the radius of the sun the atomic radius would be 1.2
times the average orbit radius of Pluto.

In the past I've made several attempts at explaining how the
charge interaction between a group of electrons and positrons
could create such a boundary. I took a backward step with the
last one. They were all based on the fundamental requirement of
the Zero Origin Concept that everything in existence is made up
entirely of electrons and positrons. 918 positrons and 917
electrons is near enough to the mass equivalent of the proton.

My starting point is once again the proton of the hydrogen atom.
It necessarily encompasses the entire atomic volume. A point
sized electron is a natural companion.

IF THE INWARD ACCELERATION RATE WHICH ENCLOSES DIMENSION AROUND A
GRAVITY INDUCED BLACK HOLE IS THE SAME AS A CHARGE GENERATED
ACCELERATION RATE FOR THE SAME RADIUS, DIMENSION MUST BE ENCLOSED
FOR BOTH SCENARIOS.

If a total of 1835 electron mass components (918+917-) are housed
within an atomic radius of 1e-10 meters and the attractive forces
between the component pairs are added together to give a final
force acting toward the center of charge the results closely
compare. A more precise compare radius is 9.681e-11 meters.

The charge acceleration rates are based on the masses of an
electron_positron pair accelerating toward each other. These are
the results when the two acceleration rates compare.

..00000000009681 Schwarzchild radius = test radius 'r1'.
6.531409295352324D+16 required mass per M = r1*c^2/(2*G)
4.64828013634955D+26 m/sec^2 acceleration rate (GM/r^2)
*****
3.800583429733027D-30 meters^3 total atomic volume
2.071162632007099D-33 meters^3 for each of the 1835 components
7.907542424152498D-12 radius for each component
1.5815084848305D-11 distance between component centers 'r3'
Q1*Q2/(4*pi*e0*r3^2) = 9.230279311249665D-07 newtons per pair
8.468781268071567D-04 N total force acting within the 917.5 pairs
4.64806875305794D+26 m/s^2 (total force / 2 electron masses)
******
The mass of every e-e+ pair on the group perimeter is accelerating
toward each other and toward the focal point of the entire web of
charge interaction, via that web.

Considering the focal point of the attraction to be the center of
charge, N * number of pairs * r1 = 8.198627145620084D-14 joules

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/grf4.jpg

Unlike gforces, charge interaction is directional. So the
opposite charges here are assumed to be directly aligned.
Repulsive forces are considered irrelevant for this case.
More on this later.

At the junction between the two curves a force is drawing
dimension inward toward the center of charge anywhere around the
proton event horizon at a rate which is equal to the electron
rest energy, and that encloses dimension.

So if dimension is enclosed around 1835 components at a 9.681e-11
meter radius, where would it be enclosed around the 207 Muon
components (according to mass)? The result is of some
significance, as should be expected. The intersect point for a
207 component Muon is 2.55e-12 meters, which is very close to the
wavelength equivalent of the electron rest energy.

..00000000000255 Schwarzchild radius = test radius 'r1'.
1720389805097451 required mass per M = r1*c^2/(2*G)
1.764705882352941D+28 m/sec^2 acceleration rate (GM/r^2)
*****
6.945606124699114D-35 meters^3 total atomic volume
3.355365277632422D-37 meters^3 for each of the 207 components
4.310722489647821D-13 radius for each component
8.621444979295643D-13 distance between component centers 'r3'
Q1*Q2/(4*pi*e0*r3^2) = 3.105973698181912D-04 newtons per pair
3.214682777618279D-02 N total force acting within the 103.5 pairs
1.764370349955147D+28 m/s^2 (total force / 2 electron masses)
******
The mass of every e-e+ pair on the group perimeter is accelerating
toward each other and toward the focal point of the entire web of
charge interaction, via that web.

Considering the focal point of the attraction to be the center of
charge, N * number of pairs * r1 = 8.19744108292661D-14 joules

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/grf5.jpg


The intersect point for a 201 component Muon matches the Compton
wavelength.
..000000000002426 Schwarzchild radius = test radius 'r1'.
1636731634182908 required mass per M = r1*c^2/(2*G)
1.854905193734542D+28 m/sec^2 acceleration rate (GM/r^2)
*****
5.9808374587541D-35 meters^3 total atomic volume
2.975541024255771D-37 meters^3 for each of the 201 components
4.141510601314954D-13 radius for each component
8.283021202629908D-13 distance between component centers 'r3'
Q1*Q2/(4*pi*e0*r3^2) = 3.364963436172814D-04 newtons per pair
3.381788253353678D-02 N total force acting within the 100.5 pairs
1.856085759250098D+28 m/s^2 (total force / 2 electron masses)
******
The mass of every e-e+ pair on the group perimeter is accelerating
toward each other and toward the focal point of the entire web of
charge interaction, via that web.

Considering the focal point of the attraction to be the center of
charge, N * number of pairs * r1 = 8.204218302636024D-14 joules

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/grf6.jpg

The missing mass could well be explained as interaction energy.
The proton mass would include some interaction energy as well,
which can easily be accommodated.

---------------

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/muon.jpg

The proton and the Muon both carry a single charge imbalance
which would be in constant motion as it regenerates throughout
the enclosed contents. That's the only tangible property which
extends beyond the event horizons of each. The entire process is
otherwise directed inward and the contents could not be affected
by anything on the outside. Regardless of the Muon's charge it
can travel fairly freely through matter, deflecting around the
geodesic pathways at half the rate per time given for a gamma
ray.

Any number of e-e+ pairs will give a similar result, so what's
the significance of the 917e- 918e+ proton? Why should that
create a stable particle while others don't ?? Why not the Muon?

Every combination of e- e+ particles where there's a single
charge imbalance has a unique system of interaction. The result
from dividing 917 by 918 is unique to that combination only.

e.g.
Proton ??
917 e- components 916 e- components
918 e+ components 917 e+ components
..99891067538 to 1 .99890948746 to 1

I have no idea why that combination works. But if no such stable
state existed the universe would be nothing like it is now.

A constant sized hydrogen atom proton should substantially
increase the volumes of the more complex atoms. But that's
clearly not the case according to this graph, which is a fair
representation of the atomic radii.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/grf8.jpg

The charge configuration shown below can be duplicated
indefinitely and all linked together in the one common bond. The
charge field lines of force would all be channeled between the
opposite charges. There's no reason at all why the repulsive
forces should have any effect here.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/cube.jpg

The proton could contain 458 of these cubic structures, but one
electron would always be missing somewhere. Surrounding electrons
would be constantly driven to fill the forever shifting void.

When an electron is forced into the proton the charge imbalance
is removed and the neutron is born. The package could now shrink
to zero if the energy of their diminishing separation could
escape. Removing any charge imbalance from within an enclosed
group of e-e+ particles so that all charges are equally
represented would cause the contents to assume a much closer
relationship. The event horizon radius would shrink
substantially, BUT IT COULD NEVER SHRINK TO ZERO WHILE THE
INTERACTION ENERGY REMAINS TRAPPED WITHIN THE EVENT HORIZON OF A
BLACK HOLE.

If the separation distance of the e- e+ components in each pair
is such that the acceleration rate of each to the other is
equivalent to the electron rest energy as previously described,
each pair can be considered as being enclosed within a black hole
as well.

The next set of figures are based on a single e- e+ pair. The
e- e+ separation distance which gives an energy equivalent of the
electron rest energy is 1.118e-15 meters. The contained group
radius for the neutron is necessarily 1e-14 meters.

1.118D-15 Schwarzchild radius = test radius 'r1'.
754272863568.2159 required mass per M = r1*c^2/(2*G)
4.025044722719141D+31 m/sec^2 acceleration rate (GM/r^2)
*****
5.853491887738991D-45 meters^3 total atomic volume
2.926745943869496D-45 meters^3 for each of the 2 components
8.873571880502236D-16 radius for each component
1.774714376100447D-15 distance between component centers 'r3'
Q1*Q2/(4*pi*e0*r3^2) = 73.29949135765169 newtons per pair
73.29949135765169 newtons total force acting within the 1 pairs
4.023023674953441D+31 m/s^2 (total force / 2 electron masses)
******
The mass of every e-e+ pair on the group perimeter is accelerating
toward each other and toward the focal point of the entire web of
charge interaction, via that web.

Considering the focal point of the attraction to be the center of
charge, N * number of pairs * r1 = 8.194883133785459D-14 joules

A residual interaction acting between the enclosed pairs
equivalent to the rest energy of 7.45 electrons is required to
enclose dimension at the 1e-14 meter neutron radius.

1D-14 Schwarzchild radius = test radius 'r1'.
6746626568264.641 required mass per M = r1*c^2/(2*G)
4.500000078967486D+30 m/sec^2 acceleration rate (GM/r^2)
*****
4.188799858093262D-42 meters^3 total atomic volume
5.622550289040131D-43 meters^3 for each of the 7.5 components
5.120133044994142D-15 radius for each component
1.024026608998828D-14 distance between component centers 'r3'
Q1*Q2/(4*pi*e0*r3^2) = 2.201584769140651 newtons per pair
8.2009 newtons total force acting within the 3.725 pairs
4.50104448687675D+30 m/s^2 (total force / 2 electron masses)
******
The mass of every e-e+ pair on the group perimeter is accelerating
toward each other and toward the focal point of the entire web of
charge interaction, via that web.

Considering the focal point of the attraction to be the center of
charge, N * number of pairs * r1 = 8.200903199001594D-14 joules

-----
The mass required to enclose dimension by gforces is 3.7e39 times
greater than the neutron mass. A strong nuclear force is
certainly to be expected.
-----

Energy expended in compressing a gas is converted to heat energy
and is proportional to e=mc^2. The mass increase when a proton
changes to a neutron can be compared with this. The fusion
environment provides the compressive force while the electron
inclusion maintains it. Unit temperature in degrees K and unit
pressure will be magnified by around 1e12 X. The mass increase
depends on the unit values at the start.

So how does a neutron bind protons together in the more complex
atoms? The radius of the proton event horizon is 10000 times
that of the neutron event horizon. In a fusion environment, when
a proton absorbs an electron and collapses into a neutron state,
it could become embedded in the event horizons of any two of the
surrounding protons which were involved in the collapse. But
only a dimensionless object could fit into the 2D realm of the
event horizons.

If the protons are forced together by the surroundings the
neutron event horizon will extend into both protons. The
internal distortion will reduce the e-e+ content across each
proton along this line, so the proton event horizons won't be
completely closed where the neutron resides. The charge balance
is achieved when the two e+ proton charges and the two proton
companion electrons assemble together around the neutron event
horizon where the proton-proton association can be almost
immediate. Those electrons will now be bound to the atom.

A channel for some interaction between the contents of both
protons will have opened up, so each proton would shrink to some
degree.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/elements.html
The contents of this link were posted to some of the science
newsgroups around 20 years ago. It seemed to be the most logical
path for the develepment of the elements in the proposed zero
origin universe. I was a little bewildered when it was treated
as some kind of joke while the nuclear atom was considered
reality.

-----

Max Keon

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 November 6th 09 09:29 AM
tentative outline of birth to death of an atom, solar-system, galaxy,cosmos; #170; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 August 22nd 09 10:16 PM
conservation of angular momentum only in an atom totality structure#142; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 6 August 13th 09 04:00 PM
can solid-body rotation alone prove the Universe is an atom? #131;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 August 9th 09 05:57 AM
where is the dark-matter, obviously, the Nucleus of the Atom Totality#127 ; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 August 7th 09 07:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.