Atomic nuclear structure

[Goldminer]

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?

[tayga]

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

[Goldminer]

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, what thread would that be?

[tayga]

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, what thread would that be?

This one: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =3&t=15023

[Goldminer]

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."

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.

[Solar]

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.

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:

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.

[seasmith]

~
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 ….


∞

[Chan Rasjid]

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?

Thanks for the links; a great surprise for me. The first is by Carl Johnson, very interesting.

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!

neutron → proton + electron + neutrino

He then explained that SPIN was conserved:
1/2 → 1/2 + 1/2 + -1/2

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!

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.

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

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.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

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

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.

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]

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?

I read a few of the articles and papers, and found them very exciting too.

How could mainstream missed these?

[Chai Wallah]

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..

[Goldminer]

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.

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]

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.

I will give them my best effort, thank you.