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 (), 226 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#10000 - 01/07/06 06:34 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Blacknad is correct. Why not discuss and critique the idea rather than my pedigree (or lack there of)?

You work in the aerospace industry? I apologize and my hat is off to you.

This peer review nonsense. The New Testament was peer reviewed and then codified in about 340 AD. The Bible has been in publication longer than any other text and has sold more copies than any other book. Therefore, at face value, its story must be true. In simplistic terms, Jesus was murdered by the Romans but he did not really die. He was born again, rose to Heaven and joined his heavenly Father. Standard Christian theology is that if you believe in Jesus, you will not really die, but will be born again, rise to Heaven and spend the rest of eternity with the Holy Trinity.

Therefore, by your standard of peer review and publication, you - DA Morgan - should scream "I believe in you, Jesus!", slit your wrists and rise to Heaven! Just between you and me, I am not going to choose this route.

In my next posting, I will discuss whether or not the shape of a proton is only academic.

Gregg Wilson

Top
.
#10001 - 01/07/06 08:41 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Anonymous
Unregistered


Sounds like this thread is getting ready to go over to the Origins side of the street.

Let's stick to science.

Amaranth

Top
#10002 - 01/07/06 09:53 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Protobon and Bing,
You seem to think that I am opposed to such things as "proton shape (not a sphere)" being posted here. You are absoloutely wrong. All I was doing was correcting your definition of science -which missed out the most important part, the one that sets science apart from fact-based philosophy. I am fine with the topic -I think it's great!

Top
#10003 - 01/07/06 10:22 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
In response to Blacknad and Protobon who seemingly agree in the following:
"Blacknad is correct. Why not discuss and critique the idea rather than my pedigree (or lack there of)?"

Very simply lets look at what Protobon wrote above:
"I have always taken exception to the idea that an atom is a miniature solar system."

No one in the physics community has viewed an atom as a "miniature solar system" in more than 100 years. Absolutely no one.

The issue is not refuting the obvious. But rather the fact that Protobon is making arguments about things dealt with before is father, likely even his grandfather, was born. And the rest of his postings, and his web site, read like science by junior-high school student. I have neither time nor interest in providing references to refute idiocies nor is that the way science works.

If Protoplanet believes he has something new then the onus is entirely upon him to demonstrate his knowledge of prior art and how his belief system is consistent with that prior art.

I asked at the beginning of this thread for the name of the peer reviewed journal that has accepted his work for publication. So far the best he has been able to muster in response is to ignore the question which says all that need be said.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10004 - 01/07/06 11:42 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Hi Amaranth Rose.

No, we have not entered religion. I simply gave a logical example of Mr. Morgan's insistence that peer review is the only factor for determining the factuality of a paper.

So, Mr. Morgan. My grandfathers were born in 1880 and 1884, well before Rutherford's investigation of the structure of the atom. But what this has to do with anything is beyond me. Linus Pauling, a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, talks about electron orbits and shells in his book General Chemistry, 1959. You seem to be educationally deficient in both prior art and state-of-the-art.

What is your education in regard to chemistry, etc? I have logged in more than 40 years in chemical education and professional chemical practice.

My current speculation on proton shape has not been peer reviewed or published, but my papers on the pyramids at Giza, Egypt, were peer reviewed and published.

But the subject for review and critique is my speculation on the shape and behavior of the proton, not your opinion of junior high school.

Wait a minute. When were your grandfathers born?

Gregg Wilson

Top
#10005 - 01/08/06 01:20 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
bradp Offline
Member

Registered: 12/20/05
Posts: 82
Loc: Spain
da Morgan "aerospace industry" I very much doubt that. Maybe I am your boss??
As I said protonbon "people not so polite in here"(Mileva). keep up the good work protonbon

Top
#10006 - 01/08/06 01:58 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Thank you bradp

Tomorrow I will attempt to post a short article on Helium-3. The viability of a new idea is whether it predicts, a priori, actual behavior that has been observed. I will predict that Helium-3 is actually three protons, combined pyramid side to pyramid side. If this arrangement accounts for actual, observed behavior of Helium-3, then the idea may have value.

Now, in case Mr. Morgan wishes to state that Helium-3 is academic, I will point out the following:

The University of Wisconsin has predicted that Helium-3 is the penultimate fuel for a fusion reactor. Mainland China has announced that it will go to the Moon to mine Helium-3. Our own congress and government is jumping onto the Helium-3 bandwagon. Let's see if this viewpoint is justified.

Gregg Wilson

Top
#10007 - 01/08/06 05:02 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Protobonehead wrote:
"I will predict that Helium-3 is actually three protons"

Three protons? I believe that element, by definition, is called Lithium.

Didn't your momma tell you it was better to let people think you an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm it as fact?

Any chance we could get a prediction from you that wasn't induced by ignorance? Didn't think so!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10008 - 01/08/06 05:51 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Bing Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/06/06
Posts: 9
Loc: Where No Man Has Gone Before
Hey Proton-man - Look forward to hearing about your Helium-3 proposal. I am sure it will bring interesting discussion from both sides of the aisle. Maybe you should start with a new posting. This one is starting to get smelly.

Top
#10009 - 01/08/06 03:16 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"I am sure it will bring interesting discussion from both sides of the aisle."

You mean start a war! smile

Top
#10010 - 01/08/06 08:56 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Helium-3:

Three scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering the "bizzare" properties of helium.

Beginning with the assumption that a proton is a hollow pyramid, I suggest that Helium-3 is three protons, attached side to side.

Look at www.nuclearpyramid.com/helium3/pro2.jpg

This shows two profiles of the helium-3 geometry. The red surfaces represent places where highly repulsive electromagnetic waves come out. This is the position of the electron, a geometrically created assembly of elysons, the fundamental particle of the light carrying medium. The blue sides are simply hard, "cold" surfaces of the pyramids. A collision of these blue surfaces is simply a hard collision.

The first reported experiment with Helium-3 was as follows. An electrically charged magnet is in a box which has a "total" vacuum. Helium-3 is injected into the vacuum box. When the magnet is energized, the Helium-3 atoms migrate to the magnetic poles and form a monoatomic layer on the poles.

Look at www.nuclearpyramid.com/helium3/pro3.jpg

Here you have two helium-3 atoms sitting on the surface of the magnetic pole. The non-repulsive, blue side sits against the pole. The red, highly repulsive sides do not allow other helium-3 atoms to pile on the first layer of helium-3 atoms and build a multi-atomic layer of helium-3. There is no bonding and there are no attractive forces.

When the temperature is low enough (very close to 0 K) and the pressure is high enough, one gets liquid helium-3. It was reported that the liquid had two, distinct phases. This implies that the isotope helium-3 can exist in two geometric forms, two isomers of the isotope.

Look at www.nuclearpyramid.com/helium3/pro4.jpg

This shows the only geometric alternative to the first form shown in pro2.jpg. Two profiles are shown so that the reader can see the structure.

Given the first experiment of a magnet in a vacuum, the next picture shows how this second isomer would form a mono-atomic layer on a magnetic pole.

Look at www.nuclearpyramid.com/helium3/pro5.jpg

When helium-3 is brought down to almost absolute zero in temperature, but pressure is not used to force it to be a liquid, it is reported that helium-3 forms a super fluid which has no friction, no viscosity, and seems to "defy" gravity. It is also reported that helium-3 atoms form couples in this state.

Look at www.nuclearpyramid.com/helium3/pro6.jpg and www.nuclearpyramid.com/helium3/pro7.jpg

These pictures show how each of the two isomers would form couples. As the reader can see, the blue sides of the helium-3 atom park "into" one another, and the entire outer surface of the couple consists highly repulsive electrons. Thus, couples cannot come close to one another and you have a superfluid. There is no friction and no viscosity that we can measure. However, the light carrying medium would have friction and viscosity. But it is so minute that our present day instrumentation cannot detect it.

Let's examine the issue about how helium-3 is the optimum fuel for nuclear fusion. The University of Wisconsin has designed, built and operated a nuclear fusion reactor. They have used helium-3 in it. Mainstream nuclear fusion science predicts that the fusing of two helium-3 atoms will result in helium-4 and the release of two neutrons with their huge energy. Nothing of the sort happened.

They got no net energy release. There was no flux of neutrons. Instead, they got a flux of 140 million protons per second. They then declared success because there was no radiation release!

Collisions in a "plasma" are random, accidental. If helium-3 had a neutron, then there should have been a released flux of neutrons in addition to protons. But there were not any neutrons! The results of the nuclear fusion experiment were completely different than that proposed by mainstream theory. But never mind, one shouldn't let actual results over rule the "holy doctrine".

The truth is that helium-3 is not a source of nuclear energy. But the authorities and mainstream science will pursue this insanity for god knows how many years. Mental inertia is a powerful but non-productive force.

Top
#10011 - 01/09/06 04:36 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Protobonehead wrote:
"Beginning with the assumption that a proton is a hollow pyramid, I suggest that Helium-3 is three protons, attached side to side."

For the second time genius I bring to your attention the fact that an atom with three protons, by definition, is named Lithium.

Are you now going to claim that Helium 3, a gas at STP, is identical to Lithium 3, which does not exist?

Congratulations moderators. Allowing this garbage to continue says a lot about your intentions. I'm going to call the ASPCA on you if you don't clean the cage and provide fresh water.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10012 - 01/09/06 06:10 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

Registered: 12/28/05
Posts: 32
Loc: Washington State
Ignorant DA Morgan

Actually 7.42% of Lithium has 2 protons and 92.58% of Lithium has 3 protons. Lithium metal rods are exposed to the neutron flux in light water fission reactors. The Lithium is split and forms 2 Tritium nuclei and provisionally a loose hydrogen atom, depending on whether it is Li-6 or Li-7. Now Tritium has 2 neutrons and 1 proton. So, if Li-6 has 3 protons, where does the fourth neutron of 2 Tritium atoms come from? Hmmmm?

Why is it that every time I post scientific information, a crazed chihuahua starts nipping at my heels?

Gregg Wilson

Top
#10013 - 01/10/06 04:47 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
God may or may not be dead but the moderators sure seem to be.

Protobonehead ... Take a good look at a copy of the periodic table. Now it appears you've never seen one before so I refer you to: www.webelements.com

Please note the numbers in each coloured box.
Note that the blue box with the H in the upper left has the letter "H" and the number 1. This is because hydrogen, by definition, contains one proton.

Now look at the yellow box in the upper left that contains "He" and the number 2. That two stands for the number of protons and we call it Helium.

Want to guess what the blue box in the second row labelled "Li" and 3 stands for?

But you it isn't Helium.

Come on moderators ... this is preposterous. What do we get next? braindamagedagogo.com or you'll just split it out into its own message board for the hard of thinking.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10014 - 01/10/06 04:48 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Anonymous
Unregistered


That's about enough of the insult exchanges and dirt-slanging. As moderator I'm warning both of you to straighten up and fly right or you won't fly here.

Amaranth

Top
#10015 - 01/10/06 04:57 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Yeah Rose!

There is yet hope.

How about making me happy and killing this thread.
Surely it has nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with origins.

And you've got to know, as I've already stated it multiple times ... that I am trying to get the three of you that "moderate" this place to do just that.

Oh well back on the soap box:
http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/4/physics/atoms/partch2pg3x.html

Please note the following quote from the above reference:
"The number of protons in a nucleus is the same for all the atoms of a particular element. It corresponds to the atomic number, Z, of that element. For example, if a nucleus contains 3 protons, then its atom must be lithium (atomic number 3)."

That's it.
That's fact.
Anything else is treading a fine line between inane and insane and in either case doesn't belong here.

And another reference on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium

And just to finish off this circus ... Protobon wrote the following:
"7.42% of Lithium has 2 protons and 92.58% of Lithium has 3 protons"

And a quick check at:
http://www.goodfellow.com/csp/active/gfMaterialInfo.csp?MATID=LI00&form=All

Clearly shows that 7.5% of lithium is Lithium 6 which is three protons and three neutons whereas 92.5% of lithium is Lithium 7 containing three protons and four neutrons.

So much for the elementary school math lesson. It appears Protobon can't tell the difference between a proton and a neutron, can't count, and doesn't care about either.

So what you gonna do Rose? I suggest living on your feet. Kill this thread!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#10016 - 01/10/06 05:15 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Anonymous
Unregistered


Dan, I love you but so help me if you don't quit baiting me I'll cut out your responses. Thanks for the links and the restatement of the facts for all to see and who has ears to hear let them hear and who has eyes to see let them see. Let it go. Please.

Amaranth

Top
#10017 - 01/10/06 06:15 AM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
Rusty Rockets Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/04/05
Posts: 175
DA Morgan wrote:

Quote:
Surely it has nothing, zero, nada, zilch to do with origins.
I suggest, DA, that you refer to the science a GoGo forum warning, clearly visible to all, that reads, in part, as follows:

"Posts of a speculative or religious nature should be made on the Origins board"

As always, DA, we appreciate your contributions to the science a GoGo discussion forum, but if the concept behind the Origins board continues to frustrate you perhaps you should consider giving it a wide berth in future. Just a suggestion.

Top
#10018 - 01/10/06 06:59 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
protonman Offline
Member

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

I have stated from the start that my idea about a proton is speculative. However, I have given experimental evidence that logically leads to the speculation conclusion. If the idea of an asymmetric proton is correct, then how elements, isotopes and isomer come into existence is different from the established view.

In short, standard nuclear fusion leads to two hydrogen nuclei fusing together to form deuterium. From this point, I depart from standard fusion theory. I claim that deuterium polymerizes ( "sticks together" much like polystyrene or polyethylene but at the nuclear scale) to form polydeuterium under conditions that exist within a star. Once the formation of the polydeuterium sphere has exhausted the regular star material, the star shrinks, leaving the sphere in its own orbit. Once the sphere is exposed, it is subject to nuclear collisions. The result is that the polytdeuterium undergoes radioactive decay as small parts come off the polydeuterium sphere. This is the random birth of all elements, isotopes, and isomers. All of these pieces are fragments; they are not designed or "ordained" by God or anyone else.

This brings up the issue of the Periodic Table. This item is a human invention, a categorizing of elements. This is analogous to the Roman Catholic Church defining priests, monsignores, bishops, cardinals, pope, saints, angels, etc. The human invention of the Periodic Table does not "metaphysically" determine the nature of elements. The nuclear fragments have no awareness of our Periodic Table and they do not "obey" it. Keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church decreed how the heavens were arranged: everything orbited around the Earth. Turned out not to be true.

A major problem in understanding elements is the case of Linus Pauling. He declared that chemical bonding occurred through electrons. However, electrons are highly repulsive. I am declaring that chemical bonding does not involve electrons at all, but occurs where the electrons are NOT located. Therefore, I am disagreeing with how the Periodic Table arranges itself, especially in regard to electron shells, orbits and orbitals.

The fact that certain elements exhibit several chemical valences demonstrates that there are no electron shells, orbits and orbitals. Instead, multiple valences imply nuclear geometry .

Naming three different nuclei as all being Hydrogen is arbitrary human nonsense. Tritium is quite distinct from deuterium which is quite distinct from single proton hydrogen. The hydrogen bomb does not contain any hydrogen; it contains tritium and deuterium.

An examination of the isotope table shows that most elements have many isotopes (nuclei which have identical chemical behavior but different nuclear weights), some radioactive and some stable. The isotope chart looks like a fragmentation spray from an exploding bomb. There is no "rhyme or reason" to it. Hint. Hint.

If protons are asymmetric and nuclei are mostly made of polydeuterium, then there are very few open protons in a nucleus. For instance, a Uranium-235 nucleus may have no more than 30 open protons on its surface. The open protons have their attendant electrons which give off a highly repulsive force that keeps other nuclei at a distance. Therefore, the repulsive volume of the atom is much larger than the nucleus. Apparently, Uranium-235 does not have enough open protons, because a high velocity neutron can collide with the nucleus and cause fission. When a nucleus has enough open, repulsive protons to protect itself from collision, then it is no longer "radioactive" but stable.

Mr. Morgan says that the Lithium nucleus has, by definition, three protons. The Pope, back in the 1650s decreed, by definition, that the Sun orbits the Earth. The head of the US Patent Office, decreed, in about 1899, that the office should be shut down because, by definition, all possible inventions had been made.

It ain't necessarily so....

My idea may be understandably difficult to grasp because it departs from mainstream thinking. But this idea does explain many phenomena that are currently unresolved: how planets form, how elements come into existence, the difference between radioactive and stable isotopes.

A number of practical applications may be possible. For instance, if Pons and Fleischman were to look at their results as cold fission - instead of cold fusion - we would be well on our way to "limitless" nuclear power by using deuterium as the fuel instead of Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239. If deuterium can be split in a controllable environment, we would have a rocket propulsion mechanism which could take us throughout the entire solar system with ease.

Top
#10019 - 01/10/06 11:31 PM Re: Proton Shape (not a sphere)
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Thanks Rose ... thank you Rusty ... at least you're paying attention. Now if only there was some way to motivate you into taking science more seriously.

C'est dommage.

Take a good look at the thread I started titled "The Origins of Life." It WAS serious science. It related to the levo-rotation of proteins ... the basic building blocks of life.

First you let the thread get contaminated ... then you used that as an excuse to move it from the "serious" science side of the house to the outhouse.

Serious science about proteins does not qualify as Rusty has pointed out as ("Posts of a speculative or religious nature should be made on the Origins board") as either speculative or religious.

So I'll stop baiting you but by the same token I hope your judgement calls involve ... how to say it gently ... well I really can't ... more judgement.

And I'll now leave this origins board to be what it is ... yech!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 3 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.