Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Proton Shape (not a sphere)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You've discovered religion. Take it elsewhere.

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.

I'm ready to wet myself any second.

Is this a site for name calling and potty jokes or is it a site for scientific discussion?

"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?

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for the link.
jjw

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

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.

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

You can explain the difference in planetary rotation between Jupiter and Venus? I would be interested.

Gregg Wilson

Note: www.metaresearch.org is the same link someone suggested in another discussion that convinced them of alien life.

Hi Justine

Not necessarily alien life. Could have been humans. We have a truncated history. There are ancient myths of a Great Flood, Atlantis, people coming down from the sky, etc. Such myths may be false or true. There is vast evidence of a change on Earth at about 12,000 BC. We came out of an ice age. We don't know what caused this.

I have given a scenario where passage of another planet near Earth would cause a global tidal wave that would wipe an existing human civilization right off the Earth. This kind of incident would not happen on Mars. So, if you were on Mars, and you stayed under ground, the passage of another planet would have little effect upon you.

Many of the structures that are claimed to be on Mars, resemble structures here on Earth.

Let's look at a general mental attitude. Do we believe every word in the Old Testament or do we throw it into the waste basket? Maybe examining it with a critical eye is the better course.

Gregg Wilson

Interesting, but better to be discussed on the origins board or elsewhere. I believe a "fringe science" board may be in the works. That would be a good place for this discussion.

We need the science board to stay grounded in pure science that's generally accepted. I need to know where the ground is to have any chance of trying to keep my feet on it.

Well Kate and Rose I am certainly impressed by your threats to prune these threads ... look up above and you will find ... "Do we believe every word in the Old Testament or do we throw it into the waste basket?" ... this you allow.

In fact this entire thread that hasn't had a single byte of serious science in it you allow.

And you want anyone to take seriously scienceagogo.com as a science forum? Seriously?

Prune this at its root. Protobon's total contact with physics consists of being able to spell the word.

I will take that as a joke or a humerous attempt to humor me. Venus is in retrograde rotation and Jupiter is not. If Venus was in normal counter clockwise rotation it would be rotating slower than Jupiter and at a predictable velocity.
Watch out, DA will get you.

jjw

Hi jjw004

You said that you could compute and explain the rotation rates of the planets. I gave you two real planets and asked for an explanation. I am not joking or trying to humor you. Can you explain their rotations?

Hi DA Morgan

You seem to be totally focussed on censorship. Don't you have any ideas to bring to the forum?
I stated that the reasonable approach to the Old Testament was to objectively examine it.

Hi Justine

The difference between mainstream science and fringe science is a very slippery slope. Case in point: If anything is mainstream and established, it is Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Yet, current scientists dealing with the force of gravity now question if the law has a physical basis. The first scientist to question it was Isaac Newton! Current thinking is that gravity is not an attractive force but a pushing force. They think that the Universe is full of gravitons traveling in all directions. The seeming attraction of two planets is a shadow effect. This is not my idea but I accept it as making sense. Newton's Law logically leads to the two insanities of the Big Bang and black holes. If gravitation is a push, then there is no need or justification for the Big Bang and black holes.

In regard to science, you can be "herd safe" or learn. I suspect that DA Morgan is very much a herd animal.

Protobon:

That is not a question that can be explained on the basis of planet rotations. Jupiter rotates as a normal part of the system. Venus does not. I think it is obvious that Venus was flipped over in the past giving us what we see now. In possibly 90 years from now Venus will return to a naturally rotating object, it will cool down and it will be on its way to becoming the newist tourist attraction. Don't hold your breath.
jjw

protobon:

You now talk about push gravity as a real potential thing of note!

Wright's Push Gravity
Walter has been actively researching the PUSH gravity concept and has developed
... Walter has about 27 videotapes clearly illustrating Push Gravity using ...
www.keelynet.com/gravity/wright.htm

While I was writting my very little book on the simplistic workings of the Solar System I came across the "Wright's push Gravity" and with an open mind I bought his stuff. One of his claims is that he has amde models that work to prove his theory. he uses magnets. Magnets are great for controled push and about uncontrolable when we try to use them to show pulling. I never saw his models, other than as he explains in his papers, but i conclude his theory at best is very incomplete. There is no adaquate explanation for why objects fall to the Earth, or as we saw, into Jupiter. They should have been pushed out into space per Mr Wright. I think, for now, that Mr. Wright is Wrong.

There is a far out theory that the Sun is a push and, based on my own efforts I can see some potential for that idea if the proponents can turn it around mathematically, not yet done.
jjw

jjw004:

I have no idea who Mr. Wright is. You should go to www.metaresearch.org. In their Store section, you can order a book called "Pushing Gravity". There are 20 authors and the idea is 300 years old. In general, it is referred as Le Sage gravity.

What flipped Venus over? And why would it flip over again within 90 years? I am taking your advice; I won't hold my breath on this issue.

You might consider whether Venus is a moon and not a planet...

Gregg Wilson

This is not productive from my view.

Venus will not flip over again barring some out side contribution. I was talking about the natural return of Venus to rotating like the other planets. It is close to stop so getting back to normal is only a matter of time.

I will check your link. You should check the one for Mr. Wright.

The age of an idea, unlike wine, does not improve the enjoyment. There are many of us searching for that new idea or theory that will tell the tale. I do a lot of searching and I always have done so. It requires caution lest we start to beleive how clever we are.
jjw

Mr. Wilson:

That is the same site you touted before.
Welcome to the Meta Research web site.

You offer this as a science source.

Now I know why you think I should waste my time to consider if Venus could have been a Moon.
In that event all planets are Moons of the Sun!
No thanks
jjw

There are profound differences between Earth and Venus, in spite of the fact that they are referred to as being twin like. Earth has a definite rotation, a core, a magnetic field and a moon. Venus does not have any of these items. This should be interesting.

DA Morgan and Uncle Al, what hole did you two crawl out of ? Give us a break and lighten up. If you consider yourselves so scientific minded why are you wasting your time making such imbecile comments ? Science should be about asking questions and proposing new theories. It sounds to me you are very sensitive to any discussions outside of your safe, defined world.

"Science should be about asking questions and proposing new theories." You forgot the main part -proving these theories. What you described was philosophy.

Sorry Bing but science is NOT about asking questions and proposing new theories. It is about learning the state-of-the-art AND THEN asking intelligent questions and proposing theories that are consistent with reality.

Else feel free to ask all the questions you wish of the giant invisible purple rhinoceros and no doubt he will log onto this forum and answer them.

Hi DA Morgan

You are having a Freudian slip. Are you revealing that you are in the academic world where your answers and theories do not have to solve real problems? Your state-of-the-art and reality is actually an exclusionary, self admiration clique? Those of us who are in the real, business, industrial world have to come up with designs that work. What reality do your "theories" have to satisfy and be tested against?

Your invisible, purple rhinoceros?

Gregg Wilson

Rob - you are technically correct about the scientific PROCESS. The whole point of my comment was to suggest contributers should be allowed to throw out "pithy" scientific hypotheses( as suggested in the forum's intro.)

RE. Protonbon/Mr. Wilson - he comes across as having the most substance. Whether you agree with him or not, he does give something to consider. As an "unclean" reader I find him the most interesting and wish there were more like him posting.

While I am a science educated professional working in the real world, many of you are coming across as elitist with no true interest in dialogue. (Dialogue is not exclusive to philosophy.) After reading other postings on this site, I have concluded this forum is being dominated by a certain group of people not willing to think "out of the box".

Rob is correct. My speculation on the shape and behavior of the proton has not been proven. But I list a test procedure for proving or disproving the idea.

I have always taken exception to the idea that an atom is a miniature solar system. This idea is in total conflict with the observable, proven geometry of atomic crystal structure and the observable, tested orientation of atomic bonds.

Gregg Wilson

Protonbom asks:
"Are you revealing that you are in the academic world where your answers and theories do not have to solve real problems?"

Lets try to connect the dots here. I'll try to use really simple statements so you can follow along.

1. You started a thread titled: "Proton Shape (not a sphere)"

2. Proton shape is a purely academic subject.

3. I am an academic (part-time) and a consultant to, among other things, the aerospace industry (full-time).

What does the above pathetic attempt at an insult have to do with anything other than your inability to name a single peer reviewed journal that has accepted your blivet for publication?

Hey Proton-Man - you are wasting your time discussing anything beyond physics 101 with the characters on this site. I even think that might be beyond them. One is a proclaimed academic of who knows what (maybe 6th grade science if he is lucky) and the others that wonder what type of substance is boiling over in a simple little lab experiment. Take a spin through some of the other postings and you will see what I mean.

Time to Go From Science A Go-Go and find that elusive invisible purple Rhino.

DA Morgan,

Whilst I find your post to be, in equal parts, intelligent, entertaining and scathing, I think you would do better, at times, to simply refute the actual ideas that people bring here instead of stooping to ridicule, which is more in line with children in the school playground.

You may enjoy your self appointed role of science's bulldog, but we would all learn more, and you may actually convince people of their folly, if you did more than invite the invisible purple Rhino into the conversation.

You obviously have much more to offer than you are willing to give, or do you think your role as educator ends when you leave the gates of Washington Uni? I imagine that if I attended your class, I would probably, (along with the rest of the students) be too afraid to ever open my mouth.

You leave people with the impression that you are unable to think beyond the 'peer reviewed journal' sanctioned science that has historically, on occasion, given way to other different (even conflicting) ideas. Your intent seems to be to bully people into not thinking beyond what is commonly accepted. This surely only stifles innovative thought and will lead us no further.

Or do you think that people pondering the improbable is without value - because science seems to be a series of such improbable ponderings converted into experiment.

Even when someone is clearly barking up the leg of the I.P.R. then you would do better, as I said, to correct them through a reasoned process, then we will all be the richer - we will better informed and you will have made a little room in your brain for your humanity to breathe.

Regards,

Blacknad.

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

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

Let's stick to science.

Amaranth

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!

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.

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

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

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

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!

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.

"I am sure it will bring interesting discussion from both sides of the aisle."

You mean start a war!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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

DA Morgan wrote:

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.

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.

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!

My speculation about proton shape was moved from the Science board over to the "speculations, religion, origins" board. Okay by me.

I hate to see DA Morgan go; we were in 92.5% agreement that Lithium has 3 protons. If he wants to stay with the Linus Pauling belief that electrons orbit the nucleus and electrons form chemical bonds, that is his choice. But, if chemical bonds are actually formed in the absence of electrons, then the counting of protons and neutrons becomes quite different from the current, standard procedure.

Let's see, the theory of a gravitational flux is now superceding Newton's Law of Gravity. The geometric interpretation of General Relativity is now being displaced by Lorentzian General Relativity ( a line of thought initiated by Richard Feynman). The Michelson - Morley "proof" that there was no light carrying medium has now been refuted.

Time marches on, damnit!

Dan:
It was moved, as I recall, because it degenerated into a slanging match on all sides with no pretext at Science on anyone's part. Thus I sadly consigned it to limbo where all such childish behavior belongs.

Amaranth

If anyone has any further interest in my speculation regarding pyramidal shaped protons, etc., please refer to my website, www.nuclearpyramid.com - where you will find a complete description.

Rose: It didn't start out that way and if the moderators had kept it clean it would have stayed that way.

So what happened today? I went to the other side and posted some actual serious science articles.

Thud!

That should tell you something about what you've created here. A place where serious science is ignored in place of claims like the one above that the periodic table is incorrect, that all of the currently accepted and proven chemistry is incorrect, and that all of the facts that have been repeatedly proven related to s, p, d, and f orbitals is incorrect.

Every successful theory, proven repeatedly by various methodologies, has shown that ionic and covalent bonding is the stuff of chemistry. As a biologist you know this to be fact beyond reproach.

Thus ...
Rose ... this has nothing to do with origins.
Rose ... this has nothing to do with speculation.
Rose ... this has nothing to do with science.
Rose ... this is about giving a forum to promote wilfull disregard for fact and supporting the darkness of ignorance.

Knowing your background I find it hard to believe you are willing to associate with this and not raise your voice in protest. I can't believe that you are not affended by scienceagogo, as it now is. I can't believe you are willing to turn a blind eye to the quality of what this has become. Trident would be proud.

Dan,
There have been repeated attempts to post scientific articles of probable general interest. I have posted several articles in the past weeks that I thought would be of general interest, and gotten not one response to them. I've not deleted anything you've posted and I haven't seen you posting anything new. Mike has posted an interesting (to me at least) article on methanogenesis by green plant, a discovery I find rather rivetting in view of it's implications for global warming and plant metabolism overall. I wonder what pathway would lead to the generation of methane in green plants. The article did not speculated on that. It's an exciting article to me, and I hope others comment on it. But sadly most of the comments will be banal and mundane, with no links to potentially informative sites to shed some light on the methanogenic pathway(s) in green plants. I too wish for the heights, but it seems the majority of the forum wants to go the low road. I'm editing as tight as I can without stripping the forum.

If you have a complaint about a specific posting, please feel free to bring it to my attention using the "Report Post" function at the bottom of each post. I will get an email and I will look into it posthaste.

Amaranth

With respect, DA, it appears that you are less worried about the Origins board and those who frequent it than you are concerned by the fact that nobody is clamouring to engage with your threads. In an effort to avoid conflict with Mr. DA Morgan perhaps it?s not the ?serious? science that people are ignoring.

Maybe you should remake that bed you?re laying in?

I wouldn't be so concerned about getting no responses to the posts both of you started. I read all of the articles Amaranth brought attention, too. And also, the recent one by DA.
I'm learning a lot on this site and I appreciate those posts. I just didn't happen to post a reply.
I really found it interesting and somewhat disgusting that the consequence of photographing the giant squid in it's natural habitat was that the camera men accidentally mutated the poor thing and ripped off one of his tenticles. It made enough of an impression on me that I discussed it a few days later with my son.
And I have experience with the parvo virus and found the article on the wolf pups very sad because I've nursed puppies through it before.
So don't worry....keep posting!!!!!!

Thanks, Justine, for your feedback. I was beginning to think no one read anything I posted.

Cheers,

Amaranth

Amaranth - I hope you are not swayed and bullied by Morgan. I have yet to read an original thought by him.

"...and the others that wonder what type of substance is boiling over in a simple little lab experiment. Take a spin through some of the other postings and you will see what I mean."

I assume this is a reference to a link I posted. In my defence, I have only had a basic secondary-school (high-school) education in chemistry as I didn't take any science subjects in College (which I have been in for less than a year). Science is my greatest interest which is why I come to this site. The reason I took no science subjects when I like them so much (in case you are wondering) is that they won't help to achieve my career-aim in any way.

Perhaps you should try and work in some science courses. It might do you some good, you never know where it might lead you.

Hey Rob - I apologize if I came across a little harsh. I was trying to make a point in regards to others who have slammed Protonbon on his H3 hypothesis.

"You never know where it might lead you."

Sorry Amaranth, but there's nothing in the world that can deter me from the path I have chosen career-wise. But I promise to fund scientific research in the future.

I do read a lot of science books and watch a lot of documentaries. The problem with doing this is that it is all so general. You never get any specific detail.