#] #] ********************* #] "$d_webRaw"'Lucas/180313 Howell to Lucas - EU2017 comments.txt' www.BillHowell.ca 12Mar2018 initial notes To view this file - use a text editor (not word processor) constant width font (eg courrier 10), tab - 3 spaces Just the other week, I finally got around to paying for access to the 2017 Electric Universe conference "The Future of Science". I don't know if you attended, but I thought it would be useful for my own understanding to summarize a few presentations (out of ~32) that [relate to, contrast with] your own ideas (and ?Ted Bergman? on structural physics) : 1. Edwin Kaal 180820 The proton-electron atom - a proposal for a structured atomic model.ogv 2. Childs, Clarage, Anderson 180818 SAFIRE project phase III update.ogv 3. Jupp, Peter Mungo 180820 Instant fossilisation.ogv 4. Crothers, Stephen 180818 Critical appraisal of LIGO's recent report of gravitational waves.ogv 5. Crothers, Stephen 180820 Logical inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity.ogv I have yet to download the 2018 Suspicious0bservers.org conference presentations, which I will do soon. *********************************** *********************************** 1. Edwin Kaal 180820 The proton-electron atom - a proposal for a structured atomic model Given the nature of Kaals work on the structure of the atom and nucleus, and a number of similarities between his thinking and yours, I assume that you both know each other. This is the first that I've heard of his concepts. In 2006, Kaal concluded that the Standard Models and much else was simply wrong. Any good model should be based on observations. 2008 found correlation with "spherical geometry" Atomic #7 Lithium pentagonal bi-pyramid 2010 understood that Carbon icosohedral (12 spheres) 2012 found entire structure of the nucleus and how it functions 2017 still have to find structures for 60% of the elements (complicated) Howell - here is my [random,scattered,incomplete] table of comparisons of atomic models : Concept Standard Model Kaal Lucas & [refs,colleagues] +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ FUNDAMENTAL FORCES EM,strong,weak,gravity only 1 - electrostatic only 1- universal force (EM) (EM = electromagnetic) (nucleus only) . +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ATOMIC STRUCTURE Bohr (& ?Dirac?) model Structured Atom Model . sub-atomics : protons ?spheres? spheres soliton (toroidal) electrons ?spheres? spheres, nuclear + orbital soliton (toroidal) neutrons ?spheres? nix - proton+electron only nix - proton+electron only . nuclear none (plum pudding) Plato's solids mix of solitons at right angles electrons+protons . +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PERIODIC TABLE partially built ?partially? built periodicity obvious periodicity obvious . +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ CHALLENGES Rutherford structure made for this probably explains doesn't explain? scattering nuclear repulsion invents "strong" force doesn't explain as electrons no problem only partially neutralise nuclear protons syncrotron fails fails no comment resolves problem radiation on orbital electrons isotopic stability ?fails? OK so far, preductive? I think this is addressed? . *********************** Kaal's presentation - very [quick,incomplete,error-prone] notes by Howell (more or less divided up by slides below) *********************** Standard Model Bohr model of atom, "strong force" Neutrons Chadwick, set as "truth" at Solvary conference in Brussels Belgium 1933, to save quantuum mechanics. Understanding the Standard Model Requires us to believe these things : - A strong force : protons "stuck together" - Electrons "mysteriously" stay at a certain distance from the nucleus - The existence of four "fundamental forces" that are not unified - The neutron is a fundamental particle, but it decays to (p+e) - There is no real agreement on anything, and if professors in QM cannot agree among themselves, how can we understand anything that they present? - Scientists should not have to believe certain things in order to do science! ************************ THINK... What attributes should a model have? - Shows a logical construction of the atom in accordance with observations - Explains why the atom has a positive nucleus with negative electrons around it - Explains why the electrons do not fall into the positive nucleus - Explains in a logical manner how chemistry arises - Explains the periodicity of the Periodic Table of the Elements (PTE) - Open questions : Why do protons and electrons not annihilate each other? ***************************** Structured Atomic Model (SAM) Still very much in development I. Major Postulations for Structured Atom Model (SAM) : - There are only 2 fundamental particles - Proton and electron are a duality, or opposites - Yet, they do not annihilate each other Attribute Proton Electron Mass heavy light Size large small Charge positive negative II. More postulations for Structured Atom Model (SAM) : - There is only one fundamental force: the electrostatic attraction force (proton-electron pairs) - The atom must have a definitive organisation which is responsible for all attributes of a particular element - The neutron is not a fundamental particle, but is redefined as a connection between a nuclear electron and its neighboring protons - A stable element has a stable nucleus, i.e. no movement, without cause, in the structure of the nucleus - A sphere (proton) must always be part of one of the 3 identified geometrical structures: namely the tetrahedron, the pentagonal bi-pyramid, or the icosahedron - The inner structure of the atom (nucleus) dictates the outer electron structure (orbitals) Carl Johnson Statistical analysis of isotope masses http://mb-soft.com/public2/nuclei6.html Analysis of the measured masses of all known atomic isotopes contained in the NIST database, done from 1996 to 2003 Major conclusions : - neutrons do not exist inside atomic nuclei as distinct particles - the only fundamental particles are the electron and proton - the accurate accounting (AMU accuracy to 10 decimal places) of mass and energy of all known isotopes leaves no room for the 0.7 MeV binding energy of any neutrons (or neutrinos etc) - provides precise predictions of mass, lifetime before decay, modes of decay and the energy released by that decay - data plots point to isotopes which have not yet been discovered SAM's basic building blocks : [hydrogen, deuterium, helium3, helium4, lithium, carbon] tetrahedron -> cube -> octahedron -> icosahedron -> dodecahedron stable unstable stable stable unstable proton n/a electron proton electron proton and electron structures need each other to be stable (eg dodecahedron + icosahedron) Kaal shows the building of higher elements though recurring shapes (basic bulding blocks) Howell - this reminds me of Kepler's search for tetrahedrals in planetary orbits!!!??? "exposed" protons determine reactivity The cycle of Eight - example Carbon to Silicon Carbon 14 decays to Nitrogen 14 - densest packing at work Howell - Kaal doesn't speak of extra-nuclear (orbital) electrons. Does his spherical geometry (Plato's solids) give similar results to Lucas solitons? I very much doubt this, even though he has not described the orbital electrons. *********************************** *********************************** 2. Childs, Clarage, Anderson 180818 SAFIRE project phase III update I won't provide any detail of the three presentations, but here are a few quick points : SAFIRE "Star in a jar" concept Michael Clarage comments : - traps photons - slows light (by a factor of thousands of times!!) apparently by trapping at Hydrogen resonant frequency, storing a huge amount of photonic energy - instant release of great quantities of energy - "naturally" creates (without forcing!!) multiple spherical shells of double layers SAFIRE presentation summary (Monty Childs) : - capable to [contain,control,stabilize] high energy dense plasmas - chemistry changes (they have unaccounted-for elements - do they have transmutation?) - slowing the speed of light - variations in electron density comparable to the [photosphere,heliosphere,nuclear bombs] - electrical confinement of high energy photons (photon trapping) - the core of SAFIRE is cooler than its surrounding atmosphere Howell - very much like sun surface versus corona - plasma double-layers provide "plasma force field" sustaining big pressure differences in short distances - highest T in chamber 1,000 C, plasma as high as ?81,000 C? (many orders of magnitude higher) - SAFIRE - A star in a jar Also - stable plasmas support extremely high electric field gradients over short distances (opposite of astronomers' assumption!) Howell - I don't have any immediate comparisons to make between SAFIRE results and Lucas's "Universal Force". ?Lowell Morgan?, retired from Lawrence Livermore if I remember correctly, did the simulations for the experiment, and I assume that he used Anthony Peratt's "particle in cell" approaches, but that wasn't stated. Model simulations were far from reality!!! Howell - SAFIRE results, after only a few years, and as they are only just getting to the point of acceptable [control, operation] of the experiments, seem to be pointing at potentially HUGE commercial breakthroughs: - fusion power - relatively low [T,P] and very simple control, with drastically reduced materials requirements (i.e. cheaper materials, capability of running at required conditions) with possibly very little radiation [exposure, byproducts] for some feedstocks (maybe even hydrogen?, but more like pB11) - light (photo) trapping - very interesting "battery" potential with near-infinite power release potential - awesome general plasma [operation,control,maintenance] over a huge range of industrial and even residential uses (transportation engines especially - including aircraft and space flight) *********************************** *********************************** 3. Jupp, Peter Mungo 180820 Instant fossilisation.ogv *********************************** *********************************** 4. Crothers, Stephen 180818 Critical appraisal of LIGO's recent report of gravitational waves.ogv 5. Crothers, Stephen 180820 Logical inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity.ogv As usual, Crothers gave [insightful,entertaining] presentations related to basic failures in mainstream physics. I don't agree with many things he says, but I think he has solid points on many other issues. He only has to be right once to refute a theory or send it back to the drawing board. I totally suspect foul science with [Higgs Boson, LIGO gravitational waves, etc etc] but I have not done my own investigations on these subjects. # enddoc