Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 201 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
11/20/19 02:22 AM
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 4
True 1
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#9960 - 12/29/05 05:08 AM Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Does anyone out there have an interest in a new theory about the shape of the proton? We believe that is in the shape of a 4 sided pyramid with a concave bottom and that atoms have geometric shapes--they do not resemble tiny solar systems. If this theory is correct, very rapid space travel is possible without all that bulky fuel!

Top
.
#9961 - 12/29/05 05:06 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Oh this is so exciting. To which peer reviewed journals have you submitted your work?

Might you indulge us with a sneak preview ... perhaps a bit of quaterion algebra demonstrating just one facet of your work?

Thank you.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#9962 - 12/29/05 07:04 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Uncle Al Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 540
Loc: Southern California
First, you are an empirical idiot. An isolated proton has no measurable electric dipole or electric quadrupole moment. Its magnetic dipole moment is not relevant to your spew. Deep scattering results are also contrary to your proposal.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy303/phy303-2.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract

Second, you are a theoretical idiot,
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0101027

Third, you are an idiot on general principles. Theory cannot violate observation, particle physics or space travel.

If you do not like being called an idiot, idiot, provide falsifiable empirical evidence to the contrary. A suitable apology will be directly forthcoming. Uncle Al wll not hold his breath in anticipation, and he has already expelled his breadth.
_________________________
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

Top
#9963 - 12/30/05 05:07 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
I asked a simple question--why get your shorts all in a knot? If DA and Uncle Al will go to www.nuclearpyramid.com and read my husband's article, you will see what I am speaking of. It has lots of pictures and no long and complicated equations. Why does science have to be extremely complicated and unknowable? Check out our theory--there is even a method to prove or disprove it.

Top
#9964 - 12/30/05 04:42 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
1. Your husband has an MS and he is a chemical engineer. In what subject, precisely, is his master's?

2. Chem Eng is a huge area. In what specific areas does your husband work?

3. How do the pyramids "dock" if there are no attractive forces?

4. What, exactly, does this theory explain that the modern theory of chemistry doesn't?

5. The periodic table is an artifice - but it's an artifice with justification - and it appears to accurately reflect and convey what's really happening.

6. "Why does science have to be extremely complicated and unknowable?"

I'm not sure why you would say it is unknowable. Parts of chemistry are abstruse. But there are parts of nearly every science that are abstruse.

Top
#9965 - 12/30/05 05:57 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Anonymous
Unregistered


A theory should stand or fall on its own merits here. Where do you get the idea that Hydrogen-3 has three protons? If it had three protons it would be Lithium, a very different animal indeed. Your theory does not seem to allow for neutrons. In my chemistry books Hydrogen-3 has two neutrons and one proton. Where do neutrons fit into your scheme? What shape are they?

A theory should be just complex enough to explain reality, but not more complex.

Top
#9966 - 12/30/05 06:37 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Uncle Al Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 540
Loc: Southern California
Quote:
It has lots of pictures and no long and complicated equations.
You've discovered religion. Take it elsewhere.
_________________________
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

Top
#9967 - 12/30/05 07:03 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Hi there gentle readers (the Asimov tack):

1. My educational credentials are not very relevent but include a Master's in Chemical Engineering from Berserkeley and time spent at the Hanford Works.

2. I have done a lot of process design and research work on catalysis of reactions in the aqueous phase.

3. There are no attractive forces. The pyramids "dock" by lucky collision. You might ask what is the chance of that? One in a sextillion?

Precisely. That is why initial nuclear fusion is so slow and why stars last billions of years.

4. This theory does not propose that chemical bonding occurs through electrons but occurs where the electrons are absent. The bonding is not attractive but is instead a parking of atoms by the repulsive Elysium medium and the gravitational flux.

5. The Periodic Table is a human invention. Reality is indifferent to it. It is a "cook book". The counting up of protons, neutrons and electrons is incorrect. My speculation is that an open proton displays the repulsive force of an open electron. Two protons which have "docked" have become two "neutrons". When fission occurs and a neutron is released, the neutron has an average lifespan of about 12 minutes. It decays into a proton and an electron. Scientific testing has established that the half life of a proton is in excess of 10X34 power years. Quite a difference.

6. Science does not have to be extremely complicated and unknowable. Humans have made a very complex mess out of a Reality which is probably quite simple.

Now for the next "gentle reader":

I agree, that a speculation should stand or fall on its own merits. There is much confusion about forms of Hydrogen. Hydrogen-1 is simply a proton with its "attached" electron. Hydrogen-2 is actually deuterium, which I say is two protons "docked" together. It has no open electrons. Remember that I am arguing that chemical bonds do not come from electrons, quite the opposite. Hydrogen-3 is actually tritium: Two "neutrons" with one open proton. Look at the "hydrogen" bomb. An initial fission heats up the tritium and deuterium to a very high temperature. What you have, in reality, is the release of very high temperature, high pressure Elysium. This release will power up the open proton on a tritium nucleus and turn it into a high velocity bullet. The deuterium is indifferent to the fission energy release, but it is the target of the tritium bullet. Once deuterium starts fissioning (from collisions with tritium), there is no stopping the process until the deuterium is used up.

I am proposing that Helium-3 is three protons, attached side to side. It is the primary waste product of a hydrogen bomb. Look at the peculiar behavior of Helium-3. All the behavior is explained if Helium-3 is actually three protons.

I can expand on the Helium-3 issue if you are interested. The most important thing to understand is that all the behavior is passive. The Helium-3 does not have to "try" to do anything.

Top
#9968 - 12/30/05 07:03 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I'm ready to wet myself any second.

Top
#9969 - 12/30/05 07:28 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Is this a site for name calling and potty jokes or is it a site for scientific discussion?

Top
#9970 - 12/30/05 08:34 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"3. There are no attractive forces. The pyramids "dock" by lucky collision. You might ask what is the chance of that? One in a sextillion?"
You haven't answered my question. you've explained how they come into contact - not what holds them together.

"Humans have made a very complex mess out of a Reality which is probably quite simple."

I think we've simplied something that appears inherently complicated.

"The Periodic Table is a human invention."
So are all theories, correct or incorrect, including yours.

"Reality is indifferent to it. It is a "cook book"."
It explains an awful lot - you can understand a lot about basic chemistry just by understanding the consequences of being in a particular place in that chart. I'm still not sure what your theory explains at all.

"The counting up of protons, neutrons and electrons is incorrect."
So you say.

"My speculation is that an open proton displays the repulsive force of an open electron."

-- Two protons which have "docked" have become two "neutrons". When fission occurs and a neutron is released, the neutron has an average lifespan of about 12 minutes. It decays into a proton and an electron. Scientific testing has established that the half life of a proton is in excess of 10X34 power years. Quite a difference.--
I don't see the relevance to your theory.

Your system doesn't seem to explain much or simplify much. You're positing the existence of a lot of things that we don't know exist - elysium, pyramidal protons, electron "emissions".


Elysium is ether?

Top
#9971 - 12/30/05 08:58 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Protonbon asks:
"Is this a site for name calling and potty jokes or is it a site for scientific discussion?"

Scientific discussion ... a category in which, alas, your load of rubbish does not qualify.

If you feel otherwise then, as Uncle Al requested ... and you ignored ... post even one single data point that might convince us you have an IQ above room temperature. Start with the name of the peer reviewed journal that has accepted your paper for publication.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#9972 - 12/30/05 10:02 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Protons which have "docked" are held together by the gravitation flux.

If the Periodic Table explains all chemical bonding, then how does it explain NH3 versus the many oxides of nitrogen. Electron pairing does not explain it. But geometry does.

The neutron is a temporary situation for a proton. I thought that the incredible difference in half-lives would implicity indicate to you that the proton is a fundamental, permanent particle whereas the lone neutron is obviously a temporary, not-fundamental particle.

The existence of a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium called the Elysium, have been proposed by the astronomer Tom Van Flandern and his professional collegues. And yes, their stuff has been published. I did not contribute to these ideas. My potential contribution is that a proton has an asymmetric shape. If so, it explains the creation of elements, planets, planetary rings, moons, etc.

I am ignoring Uncle Al because he is boring.

Top
#9973 - 12/31/05 10:05 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Kate, Rose, Rusty: If you have even one shred of decent respect for science please delete this thread and prevent this charlatan, protonbonehead from posting here again.

This thread is pure unadulterated rubbish of the worst kind as a pretends to be science ... much in the same vein as intelligent design and other imbecilities.

Protonbonehead ... you are, without a doubt, one of the strongest arguments for birth control I can imagine.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#9974 - 01/01/06 12:02 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
Thank you for the link.
jjw

Top
#9975 - 01/01/06 01:13 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Hi jjw004

You are welcome. Don't waste your time on name callers. Move on with curiosity in Reality. D.A. needs to lighten up. A little information scares the hell out of him.

Gregg Wilson

Top
#9976 - 01/01/06 06:55 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
If the proton is asymmetric in behavior and shape this leads to a great many explanations of why things are the way they are:

1) Sunspots. These are the birth of a potential planet. They would represent the random growth of polydeuterium - a single atomic nucleus. If the growth goes on long enough, this object will have incredible inertial mass. It will aquire a stable orbit and a definite spin - by virtue of the conservation of momentum. If the object consumes most of the deuterium created by conventional fusion, this will exhaust that layer of the star. The star will shrink inward, under the force of the gravitational flux. It is very likely that our sun has become too small and too hot to successfully give birth to another planet. One might note the eleven year cycle of sunspots and immense flares.

2) A brand new planet, made of polydeuterium, would lose a protective layer of cool, dense Elysium, when the sun shrinks inward. This will expose the surface of the new planet to ordinary nuclear collisions. This will cause radioactive decay - on the surface. The radioactive decay would lead to the birth of normal matter. The process would be random, which is why we see so many isotopes of the elements. In fact, there are isomers of isotopes!

3) As a planet grows in volume, the outer normal matter would only constitute a tiny fraction of the total mass of the planet. Therefore, planetary spin would remain high. In time, normal matter would break away as rings at the equator. Thus, the only normal planet in our system is Saturn. (Yes, the other gas giants show faint rings.) However, what would cause moons?

4) If a planet has a nuclear core, then its orbit and spin are very stable in comparison to a gravitational flux or "wind". However, normal matter on the planet would be easily effected by changes in the gravitational flux. Suppose another planet, with a nuclear core, comes near Earth. It would block the "downward" gravitational flux between it and the part of Earth facing that planet. Our planet rotates at 1,000 miles per hour at the equater. If the downward pushing effect of gravity has been blocked, centrifugal force will cause a peeling off of crustal material from the Earth. That is how our Moon, or any moon, would be formed. The paasage of such a planet near the Earth would last several weeks.

5) The "Noah and the Great Flood" story does not originate in the Old Testament. The actual story, in good detail, predates the Old Testament by thousands of years. The story appears in all cultures. A mild passing of a planet, with a nuclear core, near Earth, would cause an immense tidal surge on the Earth. The tidal wave would be hundreds, if not thousands, of feet high. More importantly, its horizontal width would be a few hundred miles. Its advance across the solid surface of the Earth would be 1,000 miles per hour at the equater. It is said that the flood lasted about 40 days. That is just about the right length of time for the effect of a passing plant. I have no opinion about Noah and God, since I am an atheist.

6) There is much circumstantial evidence that a planet, with a very long elliptical orbit, enters our inner solar system for a short time every so many thousand years. Whether it affects Earth is random chance; perhaps one passage out of every 13 passages would have a noticeable effect on us. Ancient texts talk about it. It is said to come from the South. Robert Harrington, an astronomer at the Naval Observatory, was convinced of its existence and searched for it for many years. He did not find it. However, we have been scientifically observing space for only about 200 years - a very short span of time.

We don't know everything and our official world history stops at about 4,000 BC.

Top
#9977 - 01/05/06 01:45 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
protobon:

I am not sure how this reply effects your last observations but I did get the impression that you may think that the rotation of the planets is random. This view would be in error. I have worked out the basis for the rotation of all the planets, and would probably have done so for spherical satellites if there was accurate data with which to work. My point is that in this Solar System the mathematics of the rotation of the planets has been resolved by me and has been published. I am not an academic so there was no prospect of peer review or comments so I rely on the book I published for proof.

If I misunderstood your post then ignore this response.
Surfing the Solar System
jjw

Top
#9978 - 01/05/06 03:27 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
You can explain the difference in planetary rotation between Jupiter and Venus? I would be interested.

Gregg Wilson

Top
#9979 - 01/05/06 04:22 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
Note: www.metaresearch.org is the same link someone suggested in another discussion that convinced them of alien life.
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.